Home / M. Wild animals, new minds and the future / Part DIR
"It's impossible to solve suffering in nature; it's too big and complex"
not being able to solve everything is no reason to do nothing. There are already ways of helping wild animals that work, such as vaccinating foxes against rabies, which helped eliminate the disease from much of Europe, and rescuing animals in disasters. And the most important part today is cheap: researching, taking the problem seriously, and not treating it as absurd.
Short answer
We'll never end all human diseases either, and we don't stop treating those we can. There are already ways to help wild animals: vaccinating foxes against rabies helped eliminate the disease from much of Europe. And the first step is cheap: researching and taking the problem seriously.
For children
No one can clean the whole world alone. But if everyone picks up the litter where they are, things get better. It's similar with animals in nature: we can't help all of them at once, but we can already help some, and scientists can find ways to help many more.
"Since we can't end all the poverty in the world, do you think we shouldn't help anyone?"
Como pode aparecer
"There are trillions of animals, it's pointless."
"We'll never end predation."
"It's an impossible cause; let's focus on what we can do."
"Are you going to give medicine to every ant?"
"The problem is intractable at the relevant scale."
"One person doesn't make a difference." (which is K1)
The strongest version
"There are trillions of animals. We'll never end predation, hunger and disease. It's pointless."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1We only have a duty to do what is possible.
- P2Eliminating suffering in nature is impossible, because of the scale and complexity of ecosystems.
- CSo we have no duty regarding the suffering of wild animals.
P1 is true ("ought implies can"). P2 is also true, if we mean eliminating all suffering. The mistake is moving from "we can't solve everything" to "we have no duty at all".
The argument is invalid: the conclusion would only follow if the only possible action were solving everything at once.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument uses "solve" in an all-or-nothing sense:
What is asked Possible today? Eliminating all suffering in nature No Helping some animals in specific situations Yes, it's already done Researching the wellbeing of wild animals Yes, it has begun Considering wild animals in decisions we already make Yes Spreading the idea that this suffering matters Yes The duty under discussion is the one in the lower rows, not the first.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. We already help, and it works.
Oral rabies vaccination of foxes, begun in Switzerland in the late 1970s, helped eliminate the disease from much of Europe, protecting other animals and people as well. There are also rescues in floods and fires, treatment of injured animals, and vaccination of endangered animals.
2. Today's impossible can be tomorrow's possible.
Problems that seemed too big, such as smallpox, eradicated in 1980, became tractable through research and coordinated effort. Starting with study is the way, and that's why a whole field, welfare biology, is proposed to study how wild animals live and what would help them.
3. The human test.
We won't end all poverty, hunger and disease among humans. No one concludes from this that helping people is useless. The scale of a problem is a reason to prioritize well, not to give up.
4. Scale increases importance.
If trillions of animals suffer, even small improvements at scale can prevent a great deal of suffering. The size of the problem is an argument for taking it seriously.
5. The first task is changing attitudes.
Today, the biggest barrier isn't technical: it's the idea that this suffering doesn't matter. Changing that costs little and is a precondition for everything else.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Animal Ethics, "Vaccinating and healing sick and injured animals" Vaccinating animals against rabies eliminated the disease from much of Europe by 2010; badgers and Ethiopian wolves have also been vaccinated Animal Ethics, "Welfare biology" Defines welfare biology as the study of sentient animals and their environment with respect to wellbeing Animal Ethics, "Helping animals in the wild" Collects forms of help already practised: rescue, vaccination, care of orphans, disaster relief *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. VII, ch. 26 What is already being done to help wild animals See also chs. 25 and 28 - d
The strongest counter-reply: opportunity cost
The most serious version says: resources are limited. Every dollar spent on wild animals doesn't go to exploited animals, where we know what to do. It would be better to focus on the tractable problem.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It concedes the problem matters.
Discussing priorities already admits there's a duty, and the question becomes how to distribute efforts.
Research is cheap and opens paths.
What's proposed today is mainly study and outreach, which costs little compared with what is spent on other causes.
The causes reinforce each other.
Teaching that every sentient animal matters, whoever caused the harm, also strengthens the fight against exploitation (M8).
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Nirvana fallacy
False dilemma
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Ignorance of what already exists
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Double standard
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if we can't solve the whole problem, we have no duty to help".
If it applied to…Human povertyTap to see
Giving or helping would be pointless
No one accepts this
If it applied to…DiseaseTap to see
Medicine would be pointless, because there will always be disease
Absurd
If it applied to…Animal exploitationTap to see
Veganism would be pointless, because farming won't end tomorrow
The same reasoning is rejected in K1
Contradictions
Vaccines, donations and relief don't solve everything and are still valued.
Which is partial help for wild animals.
Though it will never end all disease.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that the problem is immense and complex, that we can't solve it today, and that large, poorly planned interventions would be irresponsible. It's also right that priorities have to be chosen.
But
But the answer to complexity is research and caution, not indifference. What we already do shows that helping is possible, and what we don't yet know how to do is exactly what's worth studying.
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:
- Objections That Question the Practicality of the Proposal… Vol. VII, ch. 25
- What Is Already Being Done to Help Wild Animals? Vol. VII, ch. 26
- What Technologies Could Be Used to Help Animals in the Wild? Vol. VII, ch. 28