Wild animal suffering

The argument

If our omissions are also moral choices, neglecting suffering we did not cause, but could relieve to some extent, is also morally relevant. Authors such as Oscar Horta and Kyle Johannsen reach this conclusion by different routes, which suggests it does not depend on one specific ethical theory.

The myth of idyllic nature

The idea of a nature that is intrinsically good for those who live in it is, at best, an unverified assumption. At worst, it is a convenient way of justifying inaction. Copying nature does not work as a criterion either: as John Stuart Mill pointed out, nature kills, tortures and destroys all the time.

Research before action

Ecosystems are complex, and a well-intentioned intervention, such as vaccinating a population, can have effects that make the outcome worse. That does not mean never intervening. It calls for serious research and small, reversible interventions before anything bigger. That is the proposal of what is called welfare biology.

The right question is not "should we intervene in nature?". It is what the evidence suggests about this specific intervention, and how much it needs to improve before justifying a bigger action.

What this does not say

• It does not license exploitation. See C2, "Lions eat other animals": lions are not moral agents and have no alternative.
• It does not require locking up predators. F3 is often used to ridicule the question, which is serious and does not favor eating animals.
• It is not against environmental care. The environment is treated as a means to the lives of real sentient beings, not as an end.

Artificial intelligence may help model scenarios of suffering in wild populations, which are hard to calculate by hand, and prioritize where to intervene.

Sources and further reading