The background
Almost everyone thinks expanding green areas is always good. But as we've seen, nature brings huge numbers of animals into the world who die soon after, suffering. That's why some authors discuss a controversial question: could shrinking natural areas reduce total suffering?
What "altruistic killing" is
The book uses the term altruistic killing for the position of those who accept that destroying habitats (for example, with roads and buildings) could have a positive balance, because fewer animals would be born just to suffer, even if it causes death and suffering at the time.
People who hold this position agree that the ideal would be to prevent suffering without causing deaths: by reducing births, vaccinating, treating diseases. The question is whether it's worth waiting for those solutions.
Arguments against
- The cause of helping wild animals is already widely rejected. Defending habitat destruction could make people reject it even more.
- The public might take it to mean that animals' good doesn't matter, and that could lead to more human-caused harm.
- The public rarely reads the details and conditions of a position.
Arguments for
- If the position is explained carefully (it would only be justified if every other option caused even more suffering), the risk of misunderstanding would be smaller.
- The suffering prevented could be much greater than the harm caused.
- The biggest risk, according to them, would be the idea that it's always wrong to shrink natural areas, which could lead to expanding nature, even beyond Earth.
Who has to prove it?
The author discusses who has the burden of proof: those who support solutions that cause deaths, or those who condemn them. He presents arguments on both sides.
In short
- Expanding natural areas can increase the number of animals born to suffer.
- "Altruistic killing" is a controversial position, with arguments for and against.
- The ideal, for everyone involved, would be solutions that don't cause deaths.