The accusation
"If we help wild animals, they'll become dependent on humans and lose the ability to survive on their own."
Most help doesn't create dependence
The objection doesn't apply to most kinds of help. Vaccinating animals against a disease, for example, doesn't make them forget how to find food.
Even giving food or medicine doesn't take away their skills
Even when we give them food, water, or medicine, that does not take away the animals' ability to survive if they already have it, and it doesn't stop them from learning it.
A false choice
The objection assumes there are only two options:
- help now and cause harm later, because the animal loses its skills;
- or don't help now and make sure it can manage on its own later.
But those aren't the only options. It's possible to help without taking away their skills.
And what if it did create dependence?
Even if it did, depending on help isn't necessarily bad. Babies, elderly people, and sick people depend on care, and nobody thinks we should leave them without help because of that. What matters is whether they're doing well.
In short
- Most kinds of help don't create dependence.
- Even giving food or medicine doesn't take away animals' skills.
- And depending on help isn't, by itself, a bad thing.