Two wrong beliefs
There are two kinds of actions that affect animals in the wild:
- environmental programs that kill lots of animals to preserve biodiversity and ecological balance;
- proposals to help wild animals, with their good in mind.
Many people believe both want the same thing, to help animals, and that the only difference is that environmentalists think about the long term and animal advocates only think about right now. The author shows that's wrong.
How each side judges the world
- Animal advocates judge the whole history of the world by how sentient beings are affected, for better and worse, over time. They think about the long term too.
- Environmentalism values certain features in themselves, like "natural" ecosystems that humans have changed very little. For it, a world with more of those features would be better even if it had much more suffering and death for animals.
What each one is after
- Environmental extermination programs do not aim to reduce suffering in the future. They aim to keep certain arrangements of nature.
- Programs to help wild animals aim for exactly that: less suffering and fewer early deaths from now on.
In short
- The difference isn't between short term and long term.
- Animal advocates think about the long term too.
- Environmentalism may prefer a world with more suffering, if it's "more natural."