• Liz@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yes, but conservation is not a binary condition. Zoos are responsible for more conservation than we would otherwise have without them.

    • rah@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      So you acknowledge that zoos are not necessary for conservation?

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Not in a binary sense, no. Such thinking isn’t useful, however. Zoos are a very strong net good fot animals, with minimal downsides (assuming the zoo keepers aren’t calloused assholes).

          • Liz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yes I’m well aware of the difficulties involved, but they can be mitigated, as your source explains. There’s more issues than just keeping them from going stir-crazy, but a proper zoo (the only kind I advocate for) will do their best to address all of them.

              • Liz@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                You and I have different moral systems and you think that hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind, when I’m perfectly okay with causing a small harm in order to secure a much much greater good.

                • rah@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  hammering a deal-breaker for you will cause me to change my mind

                  I don’t understand this part of your sentence.

                  • Liz@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    You keep bringing up that zoos cause harm. This seems to be a deal-breaker for you. It seems your view is that if it’s possible to achieve some amount of your goal without causing harm, you should do that, even if causing a small amount of harm would enable you much greater success in whatever it is you’re after. In my view, it’s acceptable to cause a small amount of harm, if you get significantly greater good from doing so. Of course the details matter, and I don’t believe either of us would argue our position in every scenario, but in this case I find the manageable harm caused by zoos to be worth the increased interest in wildlife conservation.