The Less Human Influence in the World, the Better?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 24 of the PDF edition · English translation

It is sometimes argued that the proposal to help wild animals should be rejected because “the less human influence in the world, the better.” This claim can mean at least two different things. We will discuss each of them below.

The Less Human Influence, the Better for Animals?

First, it may mean that the less human influence there is in the world, the better the outcome for animals. But if that is what it means, then the claim is false, since in this case these interventions would be meant to help animals, not to harm them. From the fact that there is an enormous number of human practices that harm animals, it does not follow that every human action will be harmful to animals, or that it will necessarily be worse than letting nature take its course.

The idea that “the less human influence, the better for animals” may arise from a lack of awareness that, as we saw in Chapter 3, natural processes already tend to maximize the number of animals born only to have a life full of suffering and to die prematurely²¹. It is also possible that it is just an excuse for not worrying about the situation of animals. That is, the apparent concern about making things worse for animals may simply be a disguise for indifference to what happens to them.

The Less Human Influence, the Better, Period?

However, what the objection may mean is the following: the less influence in the world, the better, even if the result of this lesser influence is worse for animals than if there were more human influence.

A first criticism that can be made of this approach is that it would make sense only if it also made sense to think that a world with even more suffering and deaths than it would have with human influence is preferable, if that is the price to be paid for there being less

human influence in the world. No one seems to accept this in their own case. For example, when we are in a hospital emergency room, we want the doctors to help us. Thus, this approach does not pass the impartiality test, since we would not defend it if we did not know who its victims would be.

Moreover, the objection in question simply postulates that human influence is wrong in itself, even when the outcome is positive for animals. But it would have to be explained why this is so, and the objection in question does not do this. From the fact that humans often do bad things, it does not follow that what makes those things bad is that they were done by humans. They are bad because they harm their victims.

Thus, if we adopt a standpoint of genuine concern for the victims, we will not say that “the less human influence, the better.” Instead, we will say that humans should avoid harming them as much as possible and seek to benefit them as much as possible. In short, if we believe that whether a decision is right or wrong depends on whether those affected by it are benefited or harmed, then we will reject the notion that “the less human influence, the better,” since it is possible to exert influence in positive ways, and not only in negative ones.