Why Animal Suffering is Overwhelmingly Prevalent in Nature: The Case for Intervention (Part 1)
Channel: GWWCFTW
Date: 2012-03-17

Speaker: Oscar Horta (OHorta[at]dilemata.net), University of Santiago de Compostela


Location: University of Oxford


Synopsis of the talk:

Many people hold two related ideas. They believe that environmentalism is somehow concerned with the defence of nonhuman animals living in nature and that we shouldn't intervene in nature to improve the lives of animals. These two claims are connected by a third one which is widely assumed: the idea that nonhuman animals live great lives in the wild. However, this view is completely wrong. Population dynamics teach us that the overwhelming majority of the animals that come to existence in nature die shortly after. Those deaths are often painful. Furthermore, those who survive often suffer and die from malnutrition, disease, accidents, harsh weather conditions, fear, etc., or are killed by predators or parasites. Animal suffering overwhelmingly prevails over happiness in nature.

This gives us a strong reason to intervene in nature to reduce the harms animals suffer. We may reject this if we think (i) that only human interests count; (ii) that alleged impersonal values such as environmental ideals count for more than the interests of sentient beings; or (iii) that intervention in nature cannot succeed. However, there are powerful arguments to reject all these claims. Due to this, there is a strong case for intervening in nature for the sake of nonhuman animals, just as there would be if humans were in need of help.