Couldn't Helping Wild Animals Make Things Even Worse?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume VII, p. 68 of the PDF edition · English translation

24.1. Concern about long-term consequences

One of the main objections to the proposal to prevent/minimize the harms that animals in the wild suffer as a result of natural processes is the concern that, in trying to help, we might inadvertently make the situation even worse⁷¹. This concern arises from the observation that ecosystems involve a series of very complex interactions, which makes it difficult to predict what the long-term consequences would be⁷².

Although this objection involves an important concern, we need to take into account three points suggesting that there is a greater likelihood of achieving better results if this issue is researched in depth than if it is set aside and nature is left to take its course. These points will be explained below.

The first is that it makes no sense to claim, first, that we do not know how long-term consequences will unfold, and then that we know that letting nature take its course has better long-term consequences than trying to help.

The second is that there are various interventions that have been carried out for decades and have benefited many animals, without the negative effects the objection fears⁷³. This is the case with large-scale vaccination of wild animals, which has been carried out for decades for anthropocentric or environmentalist reasons but benefits the vaccinated animals. The knowledge gained from these and similar programs could also be used with the goal of benefiting the animals themselves, and more knowledge could be obtained if there were research focused on the good of the animals themselves.

The third is that it seems clear that the more is invested in studying this issue in depth, the greater the likelihood of knowing how long-term consequences are likely to unfold and, therefore, of achieving the best results. This is, therefore, a reason to reject the idea that "letting nature take its course" would achieve the best

results. For example, we also do not know all the possible long-term repercussions of helping humans. However, no one says that this shows that we should not help these humans and that it is better to let nature take its course.

The objection may be assuming that, if nature is left to take its course, the outcome is predominantly positive for animals. But, as we saw in Chapter 3, this is false. Alternatively, it may be assuming that we are responsible to a greater degree for the consequences of helping than for the consequences of not helping. However, as we saw in Chapter 21, this is arbitrary since, in both cases, the outcomes will turn out one way or another depending on our choice.

24.2. The appeal to ecological balance

It could be objected that there is a reason to think that, if nature is left to take its course, the outcome will probably be better for animals: "nature balances itself." According to this objection, the result of letting nature take its course is ecological balance, and this coincides with what is best for animals. Therefore, according to this objection, if we want what is best for animals, we need only let nature take its course. Below, we will look at the three main problems with this objection.

The first is that whether a situation is considered balanced or not depends on factors that are, to some extent, arbitrary. For example, it will depend on how different the situation is from a previous state taken as a reference point. However, any previous state can be chosen as a reference point and, depending on which state is chosen and how often the measurement is taken, one and the same state may be considered balanced or unbalanced⁷⁴.

The second is that, in nature, there is no balance of the kind common sense imagines. In nature, populations fluctuate enormously, almost always irregularly⁷⁵. In fact, entire ecosystems and species arise and go extinct as a result of natural processes, also generally irregularly and at irregular intervals.

It could be objected that this is precisely what is meant by balance: whatever results from natural processes, no matter what it is. But if so, then what is being done is arbitrarily changing the definition of balance in order to make the claim that nature is balanced true. That is, faced with the finding that a claim is false, one changes the definition of the term to make it true. With this maneuver, it is obvious that everything that results from natural processes will be balanced, since the definition of "balanced" has been changed to "everything that results from natural processes." But if that is the definition, then saying "everything that results from natural processes is balanced" is redundant, since it would amount to saying "everything that results from natural processes results from natural processes."

The third, and main, problem is that a situation can be balanced in the sense of being stable and yet be terribly bad for the animals affected. For example, situations like those we saw in Chapter 3, where over generations on average only two young survive per brood (something common in nature), are balanced in this sense, but, given the gigantic size of the broods, they are also a scenario in which suffering and the number of premature deaths are maximized.

It could be objected that, if there were less balance, then the amount of suffering and premature death would be even greater. However, there is not necessarily such a correlation. Everything will depend on how a greater or lesser degree of balance influences other factors that directly affect the good of sentient beings. For example, it will depend on whether it results in a greater number of births in species most of whose members have lives full of suffering or in species whose members have better chances of having positive lives. It will also depend on how it affects factors such as the availability of food and shelter and the amount of disease and conflict among animals. Moreover, since ecosystems tend to reach equilibrium at high levels of plant and animal productivity, disturbances probably tend to reduce, rather than increase, suffering⁷⁶.

That is, there is no direct correlation between higher levels of ecological balance and a better overall balance for sentient beings. Therefore, if the goal is to achieve the best

state of affairs for animals, we should directly investigate how they are positively or negatively affected, rather than centering the analysis on the degree of balance⁷⁷.

A few years ago, the creation of a field of research was proposed, welfare biology, which would study how animals are affected in their environments from the standpoint of what is better or worse for them as sentient individuals who have well-being⁷⁸. This field could inform projects to help animals in the wild. As knowledge in welfare biology increased, the level of safety and efficiency of aid projects would increase.

Therefore, given what we have seen above, the solution to the problem of wild animal suffering is not to let nature take its course, but rather to research ever more deeply the factors that affect the quality of life of animals in their ecosystems, so that ever safer and more efficient aid projects become possible, just as is already done when the victims are human.