Home / M. Wild animals, new minds and the future / Part DIR
"Meddling with nature is wrong; we could make everything worse"
the risk of making things worse is real, and that's exactly why the serious proposal isn't to start intervening, but to study first: this is what's called welfare biology. Medicine can also make things worse, and the response was to create research, trials and caution, not to abandon the sick. Besides, we already meddle with nature all the time, for ourselves; what's missing is taking into account the animals that live in it.
Short answer
The risk of making things worse is real. That's why no serious person proposes meddling with ecosystems at random: they propose studying first, testing on a small scale, and only expanding what works. It's what medicine does with risky treatments. And we already meddle with nature all the time for ourselves; the question is whether the animals living in it count too.
For children
When a doctor isn't sure which medicine will work, they don't leave the person untreated: they study, run tests and try carefully. It's the same with animals in nature. Scientists need to study a lot before helping, so as not to make things worse. But studying is already a way to start helping.
"Since treatments can go wrong, should we close the hospitals, or should we research so we get it wrong less often?"
Como pode aparecer
"Every human intervention goes wrong."
"Let nature take care of itself."
"Remember the cane toads in Australia?"
"They'll kill the predators and nature will collapse."
"The consequences of large-scale interventions are unpredictable."
"So should we stop lions from hunting?" (which is F3)
The strongest version
"Every time humans meddle with nature, it goes wrong. Let nature take care of itself."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Ecosystems are complex systems, with knock-on effects that are hard to predict.
- P2Human interventions in ecosystems have already caused disasters, such as introducing species that became pests.
- P3An intervention to reduce suffering could end up increasing it.
- CSo we shouldn't intervene in nature to help animals.
P1, P2 and P3 are true and need to be taken seriously. The problem is the conclusion: from the risk of getting it wrong, what follows isn't a ban on acting, but a requirement to act with knowledge.
The argument is invalid: the correct conclusion from the premises is "we shouldn't intervene without study", not "we should never intervene".
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument starts from a truth and draws too big a conclusion from it:
What is true What doesn't follow Poorly planned interventions can make everything worse Every intervention will make everything worse Ecosystems are complex The complexity can never be studied We should be cautious We should stand still forever The proposal of welfare biology, suggested by the economist Yew-Kwang Ng in 1995, is precisely to answer risk with knowledge: studying the wellbeing of wild animals and the effects of interventions before scaling them up.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Risk calls for study, not omission.
In every field where acting is risky, such as medicine, engineering or public policy, the response was to create methods for getting it wrong less: research, trials, small and reversible interventions.
2. We already meddle with nature, a lot.
About half of the planet's habitable land is used for agriculture. We dam rivers, build cities, plant forests, reintroduce and eliminate species. We do this for human interests or environmental goals. What rarely enters the calculation is the wellbeing of the animals affected.
3. Not intervening also has consequences.
Omission isn't neutral: it lets existing suffering continue. Comparing "intervening" with "doing nothing" as if the second option had no cost is an accounting error.
4. The human test.
When a human population faces an epidemic, we know interventions can have unexpected effects. The response is to study and act carefully, not to let the epidemic run its course because "meddling makes it worse". Applying the rule of omission only to animals is deciding by species.
5. Some kinds of help have low risk and known effects.
Rescuing animals in floods, treating the injured and vaccinating against specific diseases are limited, studied interventions that are already practised.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Ng, 1995 Proposes welfare biology, the scientific study of the wellbeing of animals in nature Biology and Philosophy, 10 Animal Ethics, "Welfare biology" Defines the field and argues that promoting it increases our ability to help successfully Our World in Data, "Land use" Half of the world's habitable land is used for agriculture Shows how much we already intervene *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. VII, ch. 24 Discusses the objection that helping could make things worse See also chs. 19 and 27 - d
The strongest counter-reply: we'll never know enough
The most serious version says: ecosystems are so complex that we'll never have enough knowledge to predict the consequences. Humility calls for not intervening.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Never knowing everything isn't the same as never knowing anything.
In medicine and ecology we act on partial knowledge all the time, and knowledge grows precisely through research and controlled experience.
Humility cuts both ways.
We also don't know whether omission is the best option. Assuming not acting is always safe is a form of overconfidence.
Small interventions teach.
Starting with what is local, reversible and observable lets us learn without gambling whole ecosystems.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Hasty generalization
False dilemma
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Omission bias
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Double standard
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "since intervening could make things worse, we shouldn't intervene".
If it applied to…MedicineTap to see
No new treatment should ever be tried
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Humanitarian aidTap to see
We shouldn't help in complex crises
Aid exists and learns from its mistakes
If it applied to…Environmental conservationTap to see
Reintroduction or species-control programmes would be banned
Environmentalists intervene all the time
Contradictions
Large interventions in nature, made by us.
Such as controlling invasive species, which are also interventions (M7).
Which is also risky and advances by studying its own mistakes.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It gets a lot right: ecosystems are complex, interventions have caused disasters, and anyone who wants to help wild animals needs humility and method. Grand, hasty proposals would be irresponsible.
But
But risk is a reason to study, not to give up. And if we accept meddling with nature for so many human reasons, there's no reason to exclude precisely the good of the animals that live in it.
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:
- Couldn't Helping Wild Animals Make Things Even Worse? Vol. VII, ch. 24
- Which Fields Should Answer What to Do About Wild Animals? Vol. VII, ch. 19
- What Else Could Be Done to Help: Establishing Welfare… Vol. VII, ch. 27