For the second point, I think it’s a controversial position whether wild animals have net negative lives, and I think the field overall (that is people, working on wild animal welfare) does not have a strong position on it.
I’m still not a huge fan of the way it is written—it sounds almost like a strawman description of wild animal welfare work. In particular, I don’t think adding “maybe” does enough blunt/caveat the second part of the sentence, which is not presented very delicately.
For the second point, I think it’s a controversial position whether wild animals have net negative lives, and I think the field overall (that is people, working on wild animal welfare) does not have a strong position on it.
Thanks, added a ‘maybe’.
I’m still not a huge fan of the way it is written—it sounds almost like a strawman description of wild animal welfare work. In particular, I don’t think adding “maybe” does enough blunt/caveat the second part of the sentence, which is not presented very delicately.