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).

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

with minimal downsides

To me your view seems woefully ignorant, possibly even delusional:

https://northeastwildlife.org/why-do-zoo-animals-pace-back-and-forth/

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

they can be mitigated

But not eliminated.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

It seems to me that we have different goals.

manageable harm

Obdurate.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well wait, what's your goal? Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Because one of my goals is maximize environmental conservation.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Maybe get over the idea that human actions are needed in order to conserve the environment.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, there are people out there who would destroy the environment if we just sat back and did nothing so.... Yeah gotta take action.

[–] rah@feddit.uk 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

LOL, we've got to hurt animals by imprisoning them and charging tickets for people to ogle at them, because otherwise bad people will do bad things. I see.

[–] Liz@midwest.social 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're not very good at thinking beyond immediate consequences, are you?

[–] rah@feddit.uk 1 points 5 months ago

You have no idea what I'm good or not good at. Nor could you from this very limited exchange. You just want to find a reason to dismiss what I've said so that you can remain unchallenged in your bubble where you're saving the world and other people are the problem.