Yes, conservatism is conducive to captive breeding, because captive breeding is a way to try to conserve animal populations. It is much harder to control animals populations in the wild, especially in situations where the animals are endangered. Conservation efforts lend themselves to captive breeding, and there is nothing wrong with the practice.
Conservatism is conductive to captive breeding. There is almost nothing that goes against captive breeding. Conservatism is one of those things that is conductive to captive breeding. People who think other wise have not taken an in depth look at what it does, so they are some very misinformed people.
Conservatism should focus on preserving the wild habitats and ecosystems of animals rather than on captive breeding programs in zoos. It doesn't matter how many elephants can reproduce in captivity if their natural habitat continues to be threatened in Africa and India. Conservatism needs to help stop humans from encroaching into pristine wild ecosystems.
There is no real connection between conservatism and captive breeding. The issues are based on completely different belief systems and ideas. You may find that conservative people are more inclined to one feeling or the other in regards to captive breeding but this is more of a coincidence than anything else.
No conservatism is not conducive to captive breeding, because it does not truly conserve something in order to have it living in captivity. When animals are kept and bred in captivity, they are not really conserved. True conservation finds ways for animals to continue to live and thrive in their natural habitat.