Home / M. Wild animals, new minds and the future / Part DIR
"A balanced nature is good for animals"
ecological balance is a measure of numbers and stability, not of wellbeing. In most species, balance is maintained by enormous mortality among the young. And environmental programmes kill thousands or millions of "invasive" animals in the name of that balance, for goals we would never accept if the victims were human. Protecting ecosystems can coincide with helping animals, but it isn't the same thing.
Short answer
Balance measures how many animals there are, not how they live. A stable population can be maintained by thousands of young dying of hunger and predation every year. And environmental programmes kill thousands of "invasive" animals to maintain certain balances. Sometimes protecting nature helps animals, but the criterion has to be their wellbeing, not balance in itself.
For children
Imagine a "balanced" pond: every year thousands of tadpoles hatch, and almost all are eaten or die before becoming frogs. The number of frogs stays exactly the same every year. The pond is in balance, but most of the tadpoles didn't have a good life. Balance doesn't mean each little animal is well.
"If a region's balance depended on eliminating a group of people who'd arrived from elsewhere, would you accept it?"
Como pode aparecer
"Protecting the forest is protecting the animals."
"Invasive species must be eliminated."
"Anyone who loves animals also defends nature; it's all the same fight."
Programmes to eradicate cats, rats, deer or wild boar
"Moral value lies in the integrity of ecosystems."
"What matters is the species, not the individual." (which is A18)
The strongest version
"If nature is in balance, the animals are fine. The problem is invasive species and human destruction."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Balanced, biodiverse ecosystems are stable and resilient.
- P2Stable ecosystems provide the conditions for animals to live.
- P3Invasive species and human action unbalance ecosystems.
- CSo protecting balance, including eliminating invasive species, is the best we can do for animals.
P1 and P3 are generally true. The problem lies in P2 and the conclusion: a stable ecosystem may be stable precisely because the vast majority of animals die young.
The argument is invalid as an argument about animals: from the premises follows something about ecosystems, not about individual wellbeing.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument uses the same word for different things:
Goal What it measures Good for whom Ecological balance Stability of populations and of relations between species The ecosystem, as a system Biodiversity Number and variety of species The maintenance of species Animal wellbeing How each animal lives and feels Each sentient individual The three can coincide, but often don't. Environmentalism, as a moral view, values the first two; sentientism, the third.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Balance hides mortality.
In most species, each female produces far more young than the environment can support. The population stays stable because almost all die young. Balance is the result of that mortality, not its solution (M1).
2. Environmental programmes kill animals for non-sentient goals.
Eradications of cats, rats, foxes, deer and wild boar are carried out in the name of protecting native species. New Zealand, for example, has a national goal of eliminating its most harmful introduced predators by 2050. The suffering of the animals killed rarely counts as a cost.
3. "Native" and "invasive" aren't criteria of who feels.
A rat doesn't suffer less for having arrived on a ship. Valuing an animal's origin above its life is using a criterion unrelated to the capacity to feel.
4. The human test.
No one would accept eliminating a human population because it came from elsewhere and altered a region's balance. Environmentalists, in fact, limit their goals when those goals would harm humans, but not when they harm animals. That's giving humans special weight without justification (A10).
5. Sometimes the goals coincide, and that's good.
Protecting habitats can reduce some suffering. But to know when this happens, we have to look at animals' wellbeing, not assume that balance already is wellbeing.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. V, ch. 5 Balance is a measure of numbers, not wellbeing See also chs. 8 and 9 New Zealand Department of Conservation, "Predator Free 2050" A national goal to remove the country's most harmful introduced predators An example of an environmental eradication programme Animal Ethics, "Wild animal suffering: an introduction" Population dynamics and mortality of the young - d
The strongest counter-reply: without ecosystems, there are no animals
The most serious version says: animals' wellbeing depends on healthy habitats. Without functioning ecosystems, there would be no animals living well or badly. Protecting balance is protecting the foundation of everything.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
A foundation isn't a goal.
That animals depend on habitats doesn't mean every stable habitat is good for them, or that any price in lives is worth paying to keep it.
The question is still about individuals.
How an ecosystem is maintained matters: some ways increase and some reduce the suffering of those who live in it.
The environment is a means, not an end.
From a sentientist point of view, an ecosystem's value lies in what it means for the beings who feel.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Equivocation
Fallacy of composition
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Irrelevant criterion
Double standard
Biases
In-group bias
The special weight given to humans limits environmental goals only for them
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "what maintains an ecosystem's balance is good for those who live in it".
If it applied to…"Invasive" human populationsTap to see
It would be acceptable to eliminate them to restore balance
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Infant mortalityTap to see
It would be good, because it keeps the population stable
Absurd for humans
If it applied to…"Native" and "invasive" animalsTap to see
One's life would be worth more than the other's because of origin
A criterion unrelated to sentience
Contradictions
And supports programmes that kill thousands of them.
Which shows balance isn't the supreme value.
But not by that of those who die to maintain balance.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that habitat destruction is a serious problem, that introduced species can cause much suffering and death, and that stable ecosystems can, in many cases, be better for animals than devastated ones.
But
But the sentientist question is different: how do the animals in this ecosystem live and feel? When the goals coincide, good. When they don't, the wellbeing of those who feel can't be sacrificed for an abstraction.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Do ecological balance and biodiversity coincide with what… Vol. V, ch. 5
- What do environmentalist extermination programs aim at? Vol. V, ch. 8
- Is environmentalism anthropocentric? Vol. V, ch. 9