Conflicts in nature
In nature, animals fight all the time: with animals of other species (predation, parasitism) and with their own species (over food, territory, or mates). Many people think it's absurd to step in.
First version: "it could make things worse"
Some say that stepping in could end up causing more suffering than doing nothing.
Answer: the proposal isn't to step in any old way. It's to research ways of acting that make the outcome, over time, better than doing nothing. If an intervention made things worse, it wouldn't be recommended.
Second version: "even if it makes things better, it's wrong"
Others say: even if doing nothing leads to more suffering, the right thing is not to step in.
Answer: anyone who thinks a right action can't have much worse results than the other options will reject this idea. Why would we choose, on purpose, the path with more suffering?
We already intervene a lot
The author reminds us that large-scale interventions in predation have been happening for decades, for human or environmental reasons: protecting livestock from predators, controlling animals that eat crops, protecting endangered species. The objection only comes up when the goal is the animals' good.
In short
- The proposal is to research ways of acting that lead to better outcomes.
- Choosing a worse outcome on purpose is hard to justify.
- We already intervene a lot in predation, for human and environmental reasons.