Are you anti-conservationism? Why it is or isn't beneficial in respect to sentient beings?
Let's pretend for a moment you aren't an anthropocentric philosophical pessimist and apply it to all sentient life:
The bleaching of our coral reefs means much less net biological organisms over the lifetime of our planet.
In opposite, conservationism increases net organisms by ensuring spaces exist for it to flourish.
How do you balance the deontological, suffering-inducing wrong of pollution and habbitat destruction with the fact that ensuring the conservation of these spaces causes many more times suffering via hundreds of billions of new bloodlines?
Are we protecting them just because it feels good to reduce short-term suffering—or do you believe that there is enough epistemic uncertainty to say that the loss of coral reefs and forests cannot be assumed to reduce long-term suffering?