Would Helping Animals Prevent the Fittest Genes from Prevailing?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 65 of the PDF edition · English translation

23.1. The fittest genes argument

It is sometimes argued that we should not help animals who live in the wild and are victims of natural processes because, if they survive, this would increase the chances of genes that are not the fittest being passed on⁶⁸. According to this view, we should let nature take its course, because in that way only the best-adapted individuals will survive, resulting in a natural genetic improvement of each species. Below, we will look at three criticisms of this view.

23.2. Do the fittest genes necessarily benefit those who carry them?

The objection in question assumes that, since by letting nature take its course only the fittest organisms will survive and reproduce, this will be a benefit for the members of future generations, who would inherit those genes. However, the traits that are efficient at passing genes on, favored by natural selection, are not necessarily beneficial to those who carry them, nor to their offspring.

For example, a species having the trait of reproducing by maximizing the number of offspring is a sign that it is very well adapted in evolutionary terms, since this greatly increases the probability that the species will endure. Since the broods are gigantic, the probability that at least some individuals will survive and reproduce, ensuring the continuation of the species, is extremely high. However, this trait is not a benefit for the members of the species. On the contrary: to be born a member of a species that reproduces in this way is to have one's chances of survival drastically reduced, since, as we saw in Chapter 3, the overwhelming majority of those born are born only to suffer and die prematurely. For example, in stable populations, in broods with thousands or millions of offspring, on average only two survive⁶⁹.

Moreover, other traits that are passed on together with this one are often harmful to those who carry them. For example, being born a member of a species that reproduces by maximizing the number of offspring generally also coincides with having a very short natural lifespan. That is, in these species, it is not only the vast majority who fail to survive to adulthood who live short lives, but even those few who survive to old age. In short, what is optimized by natural selection is not what benefits individuals⁷⁰.

Of course, there may be traits that optimize fitness in terms of maximizing the transmission of genetic information and that also benefit the animals who have them. However, we cannot infer, from the fact that a trait optimizes fitness, that it also benefits those who carry it.

23.3. Does concern about the fittest genes justify not helping animals?

Certainly, when planning aid programs, we must take into account the risk that, by helping animals, the harmful traits they carry will be passed on, harming the animals of future generations. However, recognizing this risk does not imply that the right thing to do is not to help and to let nature take its course.

For example, it could be said that the amount of suffering and death resulting from natural processes is so gigantic that, even if helping animals meant that members of future generations would not have the fittest genes, this would still have a far less negative balance than letting nature take its course.

Moreover, there are various ways of preventing/minimizing the suffering and premature deaths resulting from natural processes that would not prevent the fittest genes from being passed on. This would be the case, for example, of seeking to prevent suffering and premature death through sterilization and through research on which kinds of elements in the environment result in fewer births in species whose members commonly have predominantly negative lives.

23.4. What the objection advocates is considered heinous when it affects humans

When humans are affected by natural processes, no one argues that they should be left to suffer and die so that there can be a natural genetic improvement of the human species. On the contrary, that stance is normally seen as heinous, and what is advocated is exactly the opposite: providing even greater care to these humans, since their vulnerability is greater. If the disease that affects them is serious and hereditary, at most it is suggested that it would be better for them not to reproduce. However, no one argues that they should be left to suffer and die.

If what the objection in question proposes were acceptable, it would not be only the most vulnerable humans who should be left to fend for themselves, but all of us, so that only the fittest humans could pass their genes on. Almost no one accepts this position. That is, most of us consider it more important to minimize suffering and prevent deaths, even if this means that in the future the fittest possible beings will not exist. The standard position when humans are the victims of natural processes is that we should improve humans' living conditions by means other than the brutal ones that result from natural selection. On the other hand, when nonhuman animals are the victims, the standard view is the opposite. But if speciesism is unjustifiable, then this disparity is also unjustified.