A way to help without intervening in nature
Many objections to helping wild animals say that intervening in nature is wrong or risky. But there's a way to reduce natural harms that doesn't require intervening: avoiding expanding or recreating natural areas.
Today, many people support planting forests, recreating natural environments, and expanding green areas. Few know that this leads to the birth of huge numbers of animals who will only suffer and die young.
A striking number
According to the author, avoiding the expansion of nature would prevent so much suffering that, by comparison, even ending animal exploitation would seem small in terms of the number of individuals.
Objections and answers
- "We should think about future generations." But most of the beings born in those areas would have lives of pure suffering.
- "Animals that already exist need the habitat." But the number of beings born only to suffer would always be much bigger.
- "Biodiversity and ecosystems matter more." That assumes things that can't feel are worth more than the good of those who can.
- "People reject this idea." That's true, and that's why we need to be careful when talking about it. But discussing the topic helps challenge the romantic view of nature.
- "Without expanding nature, humanity is at risk." We'd need to weigh whether expansion is really necessary for that, and whether humanity, in the future, will reduce or increase the suffering in the world.
In short
- Avoiding expanding natural areas doesn't require intervening in nature.
- Expanding nature brings huge numbers of animals into the world who will suffer.
- So the author concludes we should avoid these expansions as much as possible.