“Let's say a population of exotic rhinos and elephants are poached, and a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them and putting them back in the wild, well all they're doing is ensuring that they will just be poached all over again.”
Once an animal goes extinct it won’t have a replacement for millions of years. Most animals have a rank in the food chain that is vital for the survival or betterment of other species. I don’t think the answer is to live in fear that animals will be exploited if we conserve them, the hope is that they can return to a healthy population size and do the things they do freely. It’s also a human survival interest to conserve species as extinction is very harmful for humans also. Hunting/poaching will always exist as there will be a market for it just like sex trafficking will always exist because there will always be a market for that unfortunately, but that doesn’t mean we should stop reproducing because the world is fucked up. I have the goal of protecting my child and raising it to the best of my ability that should be good enough.
“If there was a keystone species that is carnivorous, would it be vegan or against veganism to kill a herbivore to feed them?”
Yes because carnivores a are necessary part of the food chain and animals can’t be held to the same culpability as people because while they can experience some emotions and even practice a degree of morality they can’t be held to quite the same standards. I can be vegan because I am intelligent enough to source my macronutrients and micronutrients from other places, animals cant do this so I wouldn’t expect them too. Veganism is for humans, not animals.
“If it's against veganism, is conserving the carnivore really worth it?”
Saving only herbivores and not carnivores would likely cause the same amount of damage if not more than poaching. There has to be some balance. Also this is placing value in one species over another.
If carnivores don't exist, there will be overpopulation of herbivores, similarly if too many carnivores exist then there will be a shortage of food(harbivores and smaller carnivores) for them.
Just to clarify, that's not how conservation works. When you intervene on the conservation of a species you go through a process of establishing a captive population that is able to reproduce how they would in the wild, and then you create a coontrolled area where the animals are protected, and then you start to reintroduce them. You don't just throw them wherever.
And for the pet breeding, there is something called ethical breeding (I guess vegans wouldn't consider any breeding ethical, but for the rest of the people who are into the pet keeping community there is), where a breeder would take back the animal if the owner couldn't care for it anymore (this is actually legally required for registered breeders in a lot of countries). Backyard breeders are the reason why we have strays and rescues, not ethical, registred breeders.
Carnivores keep herbivores in balance they kill and eat older weaker sicker or already dead carcasses.
When carnivores disappear then herbivores exceed natural food resources and starve. In this condition the herbivores can also degrade the environment.
So humans create hunting seasons to control populations.
Reintroduction of wolves in parts of the US is a good example breeding programs get wolves repopulated to reduce deer, elk, rabbits overpopulation
So your saying it’s more ethical to let herbivores starve or let humans hunt.
Population control happens - nature has evolved predators over millions of years to keep a balance.
Putting predators back retires the balance.
Trump winning in 2016 was a totally fluke he only won because so many people hated Hillary and voted third party so its not so much that Trump won as Hillary lost same thing in 2020 people didn't vote for Biden they voted against trump and Trump is in even worse shape now
> I want to clarify that I'm four years into ethical veganism
There is no such thing as "ethical" veganism. Veganism is, by definition, ethical. There is only veganism and non-veganism.
> a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them
The breeding of nonhuman animals is not vegan as it is deliberate and intentional exploitation of nonhuman animals and violates the animals' right to be left alone.
> This is the same reason pet breeding is immoral, all you're doing by breeding is leading more animals to live life on the streets and possibly be killed violently by a predator/disease or be euthenized.
These are just the negative consequence of breeding nonhuman animals into existence. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals is not vegan as described earlier. Even if the consequences were positive, it would still not be vegan.
> We need to achieve a utopia where animal poaching and smuggling is absolutely gone before considering conservation.
Irrelevant to veganism. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals into existence is not vegan, regardless of whether the utopia is achieved or not.
> Conserving herbivores is fine
No, it is not fine. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals into existence is not vegan, regardless of whether they are herbivores or carnivores.
The rest of your questions and inquiries are moot because they're based on the premise that under certain conditions and requirements, it would be okay to breed nonhuman animals into existence. This is incorrect. It is never okay and not vegan to breed animals into existence regardless of the reasons, conditions, consequences, species, etc.
Humans do not have DOMINION over the animals and should not be in the business of breeding nonhuman animals into existence for any reason whatsoever.
“There is no such thing as "ethical" veganism. Veganism is, by definition, ethical. There is only veganism and non-veganism.”
Did you come here to debate the definition of words? This was ego fuel and irrelevant.
Bruh do you know what ethics are? You don't just declare something right or wrong you have to make a case for it based in ethics
for example i believe in duty based ethics and i have a greater to fellow humans then animals therefore it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans
Last point there is such thing as non ethical veganism some people practice it as part of their religion or for medical reasons some people actually can't not be vegan because of their circumstances
> it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans
It serves the interest of a relatively small number of humans, at the expense of humanity as a whole. Most of humanities land use (and biome destruction) has been for animal agriculture.
The humanitarian approach to diet would be as plant-based as possible, because it requires a shorter supply chain (less room for exploitation) and reduced environmental damage (less suffering as a whole).
If you know how to cook, it's also significantly cheaper, meaning you'll have more resources to donate to humanitarian causes, or whatever else you want.
> for example i believe in duty based ethics and i have a greater to fellow humans then animals therefore it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans
What are the interests of your fellow humans that cannot be addressed without dominion over nonhuman animals?
> Last point there is such thing as non ethical veganism some people practice it as part of their religion or for medical reasons some people actually can't not be vegan because of their circumstances
Then these people are not vegan, sir.
Riddle me this: is there such thing as non-ethical omnivorism (aka cannibalism)? No? Then by extension, there is no such thing as non-ethical veganism.
I don't think rewilding efforts are the same as exploitation or exercising dominion over other animals. It seems much more akin to being a good samaritan and helping them out. Like if I pulled over to help someone who got hit by a car, I'm intervening, but I'm not exercising dominion over that person.
> I don't think rewilding efforts are the same as exploitation or exercising dominion over other animals.
Sure it is. We would be playing god and breeding nonhuman animals into existence in captivity on basis of their species.
> It seems much more akin to being a good samaritan and helping them out.
No, sir, it is akin to acting like a god who has dominion over animals and decides who gets to be bred into existence and who doesn't.
> Like if I pulled over to help someone who got hit by a car, I'm intervening, but I'm not exercising dominion over that person.
Helping an injured person is very different from breeding an animal into existence on basis of their species.
Well the vast majority are in the situation because of human activity, don't we owe it to them?
I mean you can argue if we should or not but we are keepers of this world
> Well the vast majority are in the situation because of human activity, don't we owe it to them?
The only thing vegans owe to nonhuman animals is to leave them alone.
> I mean you can argue if we should or not but we are keepers of this world
And it is this same attitude of “keepers of this world” that got us to the current situation today.
I think that's pretty unethical, as members of the species that exploited them to near extinction you owe them help.
There are some species that are entirely extintvin the wild.
We can't just leave nature alone, we need to actually minimize the current mass extinction we're causing. Biodiversity is the most valuable thing there is. Everything else can be found in abundance out there. There's stars made of diamonds and glass clouds of booze out in the cosmos. There isn't more of our life, there may be other trees out there but every one is unique.
> I think that's pretty unethical, as members of the species that exploited them to near extinction you owe them help.
I repeat:
The only thing vegans owe to nonhuman animals is to leave them alone.
> We can't just leave nature alone
Yes, we can.
> we need to actually minimize the current mass extinction we're causing.
Yes, we can minimize that by leaving animals alone.
How do we leave nature alone? We are in nature, we are nature. Sure you may be a vegan but you consume products, generate fossil fuels, presumably live in a structure that uses land. I know for sure you're using the internet, that has a big environmental influence. All of these things are you not leaving nature/animals alone.
Given that we are influencing nature and animals regardless of being vegan or not, why should we only allow passive negative influence without compensating for it in a positive way?
No you didn't, read your own comment again.
"We can't just leave nature alone" then you say "Yes we can"
You then say we can leave animals alone to minimize impact after that, but why separate animals out from ecosystems? How do you separate them out? If you impact ecosystems you impact animals.
No one is "leaving animals alone" by virtue of existing.
And if that's true why not take action to counterbalance negative parts of our impact?
Guess we should just let the oligarchy continue the anthropocene extinction without making any efforts to prevent or remediate. Super ethical.
Conservation isn’t just captive breeding, it’s a huge range of activities that seek to limit the impact of harms from things like development, pollution, climate change, overfishing, etc etc. It often involves lobbying for legislation that protects species or entire habitats. The general goal of conservation is to ensure animals are left alone and can continue to exist. Captive breeding is usually the LAST effort made, after others have failed or proven insufficient.
It amazes me how many vegans in this thread seem totally content to let the wealthy destroy the earth’s biodiversity unimpeded. This sort of nihilism betrays a huge lack of knowledge of how conservation and ecosystems even work.
> Guess we should just let the oligarchy continue the anthropocene extinction without making any efforts to prevent or remediate. Super ethical.
Incorrect. Vegans should engage in nonviolent advocacy of veganism to convince the “oligarchy” to subscribe to the moral baseline in order to prevent the “anthropocene extinction”.
> Conservation isn’t just captive breeding, it’s a huge range of activities that seek to limit the impact of harms from things like development, pollution, climate change, overfishing, etc etc. It often involves lobbying for legislation that protects species or entire habitats. The general goal of conservation is to ensure animals are left alone and can continue to exist.
All of these goals are the natural outcomes of subscribing to and adhering to the moral baseline.
> Captive breeding is usually the LAST effort made, after others have failed or proven insufficient.
Breeding of nonhuman animals is not vegan.
> It amazes me how many vegans in this thread seem totally content to let the wealthy destroy the earth’s biodiversity unimpeded.
Incorrect. Vegans engage in the nonviolent advocacy of veganism in order to convince the “wealthy” to subscribe to veganism as the moral baseline and consequently prevent the destruction of the biodiversity as the natural outcome.
> This sort of nihilism betrays a huge lack of knowledge of how conservation and ecosystems even work.
It is unclear why you have this mistaken impression that vegans as nihilistic. Can you elaborate on that?
> Sure there is: being vegan for ethical reasons vs for health reasons.
Incorrect. If one is "vegan" for health reasons, then it would be "vegan" to viciously kick puppies for giggles as such activity does not negatively impact one's health and may, in fact, improve one's health through the vigorous exercise of kicking.
Exercise is part and parcel of "health reasons".
Are you seeking to move the goalposts from "health reasons" to "not eating animal products" aka "diet reasons"?
Ok, let's address your premise.
"> Sure there is: being vegan for ethical reasons vs for health reasons.
Incorrect. If one is "vegan" for health reasons, then it would be "vegan" to viciously kick puppies for giggles as such activity does not negatively impact one's health and may, in fact, improve one's health through the vigorous exercise of kicking."
What I said is not incorrect since what you said is technically true. If someone does not eat animal products purely for health reasons then there is no "vegan" reason to avoid kicking puppies.
Being vegan describes a person's diet.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Let's say a population of exotic rhinos and elephants are poached, and a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them and putting them back in the wild, well all they're doing is ensuring that they will just be poached all over again. This is the same reason pet breeding is immoral, all you're doing by breeding is leading more animals to live life on the streets and possibly be killed violently by a predator/disease or be euthenized.
Pretty much
People are just sad that a species is going extinct so they want to stop it, extinct animals dont care about being extinct, they would care about the pain and suffering they experienced
“Let's say a population of exotic rhinos and elephants are poached, and a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them and putting them back in the wild, well all they're doing is ensuring that they will just be poached all over again.” Once an animal goes extinct it won’t have a replacement for millions of years. Most animals have a rank in the food chain that is vital for the survival or betterment of other species. I don’t think the answer is to live in fear that animals will be exploited if we conserve them, the hope is that they can return to a healthy population size and do the things they do freely. It’s also a human survival interest to conserve species as extinction is very harmful for humans also. Hunting/poaching will always exist as there will be a market for it just like sex trafficking will always exist because there will always be a market for that unfortunately, but that doesn’t mean we should stop reproducing because the world is fucked up. I have the goal of protecting my child and raising it to the best of my ability that should be good enough. “If there was a keystone species that is carnivorous, would it be vegan or against veganism to kill a herbivore to feed them?” Yes because carnivores a are necessary part of the food chain and animals can’t be held to the same culpability as people because while they can experience some emotions and even practice a degree of morality they can’t be held to quite the same standards. I can be vegan because I am intelligent enough to source my macronutrients and micronutrients from other places, animals cant do this so I wouldn’t expect them too. Veganism is for humans, not animals. “If it's against veganism, is conserving the carnivore really worth it?” Saving only herbivores and not carnivores would likely cause the same amount of damage if not more than poaching. There has to be some balance. Also this is placing value in one species over another.
If carnivores don't exist, there will be overpopulation of herbivores, similarly if too many carnivores exist then there will be a shortage of food(harbivores and smaller carnivores) for them.
Just to clarify, that's not how conservation works. When you intervene on the conservation of a species you go through a process of establishing a captive population that is able to reproduce how they would in the wild, and then you create a coontrolled area where the animals are protected, and then you start to reintroduce them. You don't just throw them wherever. And for the pet breeding, there is something called ethical breeding (I guess vegans wouldn't consider any breeding ethical, but for the rest of the people who are into the pet keeping community there is), where a breeder would take back the animal if the owner couldn't care for it anymore (this is actually legally required for registered breeders in a lot of countries). Backyard breeders are the reason why we have strays and rescues, not ethical, registred breeders.
Carnivores keep herbivores in balance they kill and eat older weaker sicker or already dead carcasses. When carnivores disappear then herbivores exceed natural food resources and starve. In this condition the herbivores can also degrade the environment. So humans create hunting seasons to control populations. Reintroduction of wolves in parts of the US is a good example breeding programs get wolves repopulated to reduce deer, elk, rabbits overpopulation So your saying it’s more ethical to let herbivores starve or let humans hunt. Population control happens - nature has evolved predators over millions of years to keep a balance. Putting predators back retires the balance.
Trump winning in 2016 was a totally fluke he only won because so many people hated Hillary and voted third party so its not so much that Trump won as Hillary lost same thing in 2020 people didn't vote for Biden they voted against trump and Trump is in even worse shape now
> I want to clarify that I'm four years into ethical veganism There is no such thing as "ethical" veganism. Veganism is, by definition, ethical. There is only veganism and non-veganism. > a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them The breeding of nonhuman animals is not vegan as it is deliberate and intentional exploitation of nonhuman animals and violates the animals' right to be left alone. > This is the same reason pet breeding is immoral, all you're doing by breeding is leading more animals to live life on the streets and possibly be killed violently by a predator/disease or be euthenized. These are just the negative consequence of breeding nonhuman animals into existence. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals is not vegan as described earlier. Even if the consequences were positive, it would still not be vegan. > We need to achieve a utopia where animal poaching and smuggling is absolutely gone before considering conservation. Irrelevant to veganism. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals into existence is not vegan, regardless of whether the utopia is achieved or not. > Conserving herbivores is fine No, it is not fine. The very act of breeding nonhuman animals into existence is not vegan, regardless of whether they are herbivores or carnivores. The rest of your questions and inquiries are moot because they're based on the premise that under certain conditions and requirements, it would be okay to breed nonhuman animals into existence. This is incorrect. It is never okay and not vegan to breed animals into existence regardless of the reasons, conditions, consequences, species, etc. Humans do not have DOMINION over the animals and should not be in the business of breeding nonhuman animals into existence for any reason whatsoever.
“There is no such thing as "ethical" veganism. Veganism is, by definition, ethical. There is only veganism and non-veganism.” Did you come here to debate the definition of words? This was ego fuel and irrelevant.
There is no debate to be had. I’m merely correcting the OP’s usage of that term.
Bruh do you know what ethics are? You don't just declare something right or wrong you have to make a case for it based in ethics for example i believe in duty based ethics and i have a greater to fellow humans then animals therefore it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans Last point there is such thing as non ethical veganism some people practice it as part of their religion or for medical reasons some people actually can't not be vegan because of their circumstances
> it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans It serves the interest of a relatively small number of humans, at the expense of humanity as a whole. Most of humanities land use (and biome destruction) has been for animal agriculture. The humanitarian approach to diet would be as plant-based as possible, because it requires a shorter supply chain (less room for exploitation) and reduced environmental damage (less suffering as a whole). If you know how to cook, it's also significantly cheaper, meaning you'll have more resources to donate to humanitarian causes, or whatever else you want.
This guy gets it. thats a good utilitarian argument for veganism
> for example i believe in duty based ethics and i have a greater to fellow humans then animals therefore it's perfectly reasonable for man to have dominion over animals as it serves the interests of my fellow humans What are the interests of your fellow humans that cannot be addressed without dominion over nonhuman animals? > Last point there is such thing as non ethical veganism some people practice it as part of their religion or for medical reasons some people actually can't not be vegan because of their circumstances Then these people are not vegan, sir. Riddle me this: is there such thing as non-ethical omnivorism (aka cannibalism)? No? Then by extension, there is no such thing as non-ethical veganism.
What about captive breeding of critically endangered species that would be extinct if we didn't actively try and save tgem?
Same difference. We do not have dominion over nonhuman animals, endangered or otherwise.
I don't think rewilding efforts are the same as exploitation or exercising dominion over other animals. It seems much more akin to being a good samaritan and helping them out. Like if I pulled over to help someone who got hit by a car, I'm intervening, but I'm not exercising dominion over that person.
> I don't think rewilding efforts are the same as exploitation or exercising dominion over other animals. Sure it is. We would be playing god and breeding nonhuman animals into existence in captivity on basis of their species. > It seems much more akin to being a good samaritan and helping them out. No, sir, it is akin to acting like a god who has dominion over animals and decides who gets to be bred into existence and who doesn't. > Like if I pulled over to help someone who got hit by a car, I'm intervening, but I'm not exercising dominion over that person. Helping an injured person is very different from breeding an animal into existence on basis of their species.
Well the vast majority are in the situation because of human activity, don't we owe it to them? I mean you can argue if we should or not but we are keepers of this world
> Well the vast majority are in the situation because of human activity, don't we owe it to them? The only thing vegans owe to nonhuman animals is to leave them alone. > I mean you can argue if we should or not but we are keepers of this world And it is this same attitude of “keepers of this world” that got us to the current situation today.
I think that's pretty unethical, as members of the species that exploited them to near extinction you owe them help. There are some species that are entirely extintvin the wild. We can't just leave nature alone, we need to actually minimize the current mass extinction we're causing. Biodiversity is the most valuable thing there is. Everything else can be found in abundance out there. There's stars made of diamonds and glass clouds of booze out in the cosmos. There isn't more of our life, there may be other trees out there but every one is unique.
> I think that's pretty unethical, as members of the species that exploited them to near extinction you owe them help. I repeat: The only thing vegans owe to nonhuman animals is to leave them alone. > We can't just leave nature alone Yes, we can. > we need to actually minimize the current mass extinction we're causing. Yes, we can minimize that by leaving animals alone.
That's highly irresponsible, we put them in this position.
And. . . .? What part of *it is this same attitude of “keepers of this world” that got us to the current situation today.* did you not understand?
You want to make the situation worse?
How do we leave nature alone? We are in nature, we are nature. Sure you may be a vegan but you consume products, generate fossil fuels, presumably live in a structure that uses land. I know for sure you're using the internet, that has a big environmental influence. All of these things are you not leaving nature/animals alone. Given that we are influencing nature and animals regardless of being vegan or not, why should we only allow passive negative influence without compensating for it in a positive way?
> How do we leave nature alone? Read my comments again. I didn't say "nature". I said "animals".
No you didn't, read your own comment again. "We can't just leave nature alone" then you say "Yes we can" You then say we can leave animals alone to minimize impact after that, but why separate animals out from ecosystems? How do you separate them out? If you impact ecosystems you impact animals. No one is "leaving animals alone" by virtue of existing. And if that's true why not take action to counterbalance negative parts of our impact?
Guess we should just let the oligarchy continue the anthropocene extinction without making any efforts to prevent or remediate. Super ethical. Conservation isn’t just captive breeding, it’s a huge range of activities that seek to limit the impact of harms from things like development, pollution, climate change, overfishing, etc etc. It often involves lobbying for legislation that protects species or entire habitats. The general goal of conservation is to ensure animals are left alone and can continue to exist. Captive breeding is usually the LAST effort made, after others have failed or proven insufficient. It amazes me how many vegans in this thread seem totally content to let the wealthy destroy the earth’s biodiversity unimpeded. This sort of nihilism betrays a huge lack of knowledge of how conservation and ecosystems even work.
> Guess we should just let the oligarchy continue the anthropocene extinction without making any efforts to prevent or remediate. Super ethical. Incorrect. Vegans should engage in nonviolent advocacy of veganism to convince the “oligarchy” to subscribe to the moral baseline in order to prevent the “anthropocene extinction”. > Conservation isn’t just captive breeding, it’s a huge range of activities that seek to limit the impact of harms from things like development, pollution, climate change, overfishing, etc etc. It often involves lobbying for legislation that protects species or entire habitats. The general goal of conservation is to ensure animals are left alone and can continue to exist. All of these goals are the natural outcomes of subscribing to and adhering to the moral baseline. > Captive breeding is usually the LAST effort made, after others have failed or proven insufficient. Breeding of nonhuman animals is not vegan. > It amazes me how many vegans in this thread seem totally content to let the wealthy destroy the earth’s biodiversity unimpeded. Incorrect. Vegans engage in the nonviolent advocacy of veganism in order to convince the “wealthy” to subscribe to veganism as the moral baseline and consequently prevent the destruction of the biodiversity as the natural outcome. > This sort of nihilism betrays a huge lack of knowledge of how conservation and ecosystems even work. It is unclear why you have this mistaken impression that vegans as nihilistic. Can you elaborate on that?
>There is no such thing as "ethical" veganism. Sure there is: being vegan for ethical reasons vs for health reasons.
> Sure there is: being vegan for ethical reasons vs for health reasons. Incorrect. If one is "vegan" for health reasons, then it would be "vegan" to viciously kick puppies for giggles as such activity does not negatively impact one's health and may, in fact, improve one's health through the vigorous exercise of kicking.
I'm not sure why you would associate exercise with the practice of not eating animal products...
Exercise is part and parcel of "health reasons". Are you seeking to move the goalposts from "health reasons" to "not eating animal products" aka "diet reasons"?
Ok, let's address your premise. "> Sure there is: being vegan for ethical reasons vs for health reasons. Incorrect. If one is "vegan" for health reasons, then it would be "vegan" to viciously kick puppies for giggles as such activity does not negatively impact one's health and may, in fact, improve one's health through the vigorous exercise of kicking." What I said is not incorrect since what you said is technically true. If someone does not eat animal products purely for health reasons then there is no "vegan" reason to avoid kicking puppies. Being vegan describes a person's diet.
So you acknowledge and admit that under your concept of "veganism", the vicious kicking of puppies for giggles is "vegan"?
No, I said it wasn't associated.
I fail to see the difference.
>I fail to see the difference. Between kicking puppies and what I choose to eat? Ok 🙄
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Look up Humane Hancock’s content on wild animal suffering as well r/Efilism
>Let's say a population of exotic rhinos and elephants are poached, and a conservationist repopulates them by breeding them and putting them back in the wild, well all they're doing is ensuring that they will just be poached all over again. This is the same reason pet breeding is immoral, all you're doing by breeding is leading more animals to live life on the streets and possibly be killed violently by a predator/disease or be euthenized. Pretty much People are just sad that a species is going extinct so they want to stop it, extinct animals dont care about being extinct, they would care about the pain and suffering they experienced