Wild Animal Suffering

[nobody]

Refering to choices: don't we have a choice to intervene and prevent the suffering if sentient beings? (Hypothetically, if it were practicable).

Actually, we do intervene where practical. Here are some of the ways:

Helping animals in the wild

Animals face significant harms in the wild. Fortunately, though, there are many ways we can help them, but we need to raise awareness about this.

www.animal-ethics.org

As far as predation, we don't have the technology to do something about that one across the board without causing ecosystem collapse but in the future we will be able to do more than we can currently, and for now, there are ways to tweak things for less suffering. One way is to engineer less r-selected animals being born in an area, most of whom would be destined to be eaten alive before reaching adulthood. This tweaking can be done in some areas, such as an area that is going to be rewilded for example. There is no sense in rewilding an area in a way that will cause the maximum suffering, and by having vegetation in an area that favors K-selected herbivores over r-selected, you can get a more favorable outcome.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

WAS is a really unpolular topic in the vegan communuty. This is unfortunate because it creates a gaping hole in animal rights theory where an omnivore can say, and they do all the time: "If animals matter morally we should be helping wild animals who are suffering and dying". The answer needs to be "we help wild animals as much as we possibly can with the knowledge and resources we have available to us right now and welfare biology is progressing every year" . The answer should not be "nature is none of our business. We need to just get out of its way and let it do its thing." That used to be my view but now I see it is not right. I brought this up before:

Welfare Biology

I used to think domesticated animals do not understand the world they live in but that wild animal do. For instance, a dog or cat may not understand the danger of chewing on electrical wires, or the danger that moving vehicles present to them, or the danger of getting out of the house and...

www.veganforum.org

 

[JacobVeganism]

Actually, we do intervene where practical. Here are some of the ways:

Helping animals in the wild

Animals face significant harms in the wild. Fortunately, though, there are many ways we can help them, but we need to raise awareness about this.

www.animal-ethics.org

As far as predation, we don't have the technology to do something about that one across the board without causing ecosystem collapse but in the future we will be able to do more than we can currently, and for now, there are ways to tweak things for less suffering. One way is to engineer less r-selected animals being born in an area, most of whom would be destined to be eaten alive before reaching adulthood. This tweaking can be done in some areas, such as an area that is going to be rewilded for example. There is no sense in rewilding an area in a way that will cause the maximum suffering, and by having vegetation in an area that favors K-selected herbivores over r-selected, you can get a more favorable outcome.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

WAS is a really unpolular topic in the vegan communuty. This is unfortunate because it creates a gaping hole in animal rights theory where an omnivore can say, and they do all the time: "If animals matter morally we should be helping wild animals who are suffering and dying". The answer needs to be "we help wild animals as much as we possibly can with the knowledge and resources we have available to us right now and welfare biology is progressing every year" . The answer should not be "nature is none of our business. We need to just get out of its way and let it do its thing." That used to be my view but now I see it is not right. I brought this up before:

Welfare Biology

I used to think domesticated animals do not understand the world they live in but that wild animal do. For instance, a dog or cat may not understand the danger of chewing on electrical wires, or the danger that moving vehicles present to them, or the danger of getting out of the house and...

www.veganforum.org

Well said. Would you promote painlessly slaughtering, and feeding to predators, or just eliminating predators altogether? How you answer is important as to how you view life.
Side note: my thread was locked and I was called a troll

 

[Lou]

My only thoughts on "Wild Animal Suffering" is the amount of wildlife death and damage that is caused by livestock farming. From actively hunting and poisoning predators to the damage done by wildlife by barb wire fences, to the damage done by habitat destruction.
Being that vegans think that livestock farming is at best unnecessary that means we can reduce a lot of wildlife suffering simply by not taking part in livestock farming. The harm to wildlife caused by typical livestock farming practices is avoidable. That seems like the obvious place to start.

 

[JacobVeganism]

My only thoughts on "Wild Animal Suffering" is the amount of wildlife death and damage that is caused by livestock farming. From actively hunting and poisoning predators to the damage done by wildlife by barb wire fences, to the damage done by habitat destruction.
Being that vegans think that livestock farming is at best unnecessary that means we can reduce a lot of wildlife suffering simply by not taking part in livestock farming. The harm to wildlife caused by typical livestock farming practices is avoidable. That seems like the obvious place to start.

Absolutely agree with how you've ended that, and this is the key point: we need to get the majority on board with anti-speciesism, before trying to apply it further. I still think it's worth debating over though.

 

[Gaspard]

At the moment it seems that I'm changing my mind on this subject.

 

[nobody]

Well said. Would you promote painlessly slaughtering, and feeding to predators, or just eliminating predators altogether? How you answer is important as to how you view life.
Side note: my thread was locked and I was called a troll

I promote talking about these issues and laying the philosophical groundwork. Because of resource and technology constraints, it is difficult to do anything right now about some things that cause wild animals to suffer, such as:

hunger,
thirst,
parasites,
predation,
agression,
disease,
accidents

I see it going in this direction ultimately: Some day we will have quantum computers calculating the needs of each sentient animal on the planet as well as its relationship to the rest of the bioshere, and dispatching robots to tend to them as necessary. Some robots would be bioengineered non-sentient meat-bots for predators to eat while others would provide medical care and birth control as necessary to keep populations stable, while others would ensure all animals had food and water, etc.

 

[JacobVeganism]

I promote talking about these issues and laying the philosophical groundwork. Because of resource and technology constraints, it is difficult to do anything right now about some things that cause wild animals to suffer, such as:

hunger,
thirst,
parasites,
predation,
agression,
disease,
accidents

I see it going in this direction ultimately: Some day we will have quantum computers calculating the needs of each sentient animal on the planet as well as its relationship to the rest of the bioshere, and dispatching robots to tend to them as necessary. Some robots would be bioengineered non-sentient meat-bots for predators to eat while others would provide medical care and birth control as necessary to keep populations stable, while others would ensure all animals had food and water, etc.

This Eutopia (although it seems a little dystopian in parts) would possibly be ideal, although we should still try to combat suffering before we reach this future (if we ever do) also there may be issue with free will and control with this idea.

I really appreciate your discussion.

 

[nobody]

we should still try to combat suffering before we reach this future (if we ever do)

I agree but in the ways listed in that Animal-Ethics page I posted the link to, not these:

"...painlessly slaughtering, and feeding to predators, or just eliminating predators altogether"

Maybe painless slaughter if you happen to come upon a baby elephant being eaten alive by a pride of lions or somthing like that, but we don't have the resources to do anything like that on a large scale.

Eliminating predators would cause more animals to starve to death and would mess up the web of life in countless unknown ways. We need quantum computers, robots and AI to micromanage everything to really do anything about predation (without causing more suffering)

Plus, with the right technology and enough resources there is no need for predators to go extinct in order to end predation and we may come into those resources and that technology in the future.

 

[JacobVeganism]

I agree but in the ways listed in that Animal-Ethics page I posted the link to, not these:

"...painlessly slaughtering, and feeding to predators, or just eliminating predators altogether"

Maybe painless slaughter if you happen to come upon a baby elephant being eaten alive by a pride of lions or somthing like that, but we don't have the resources to do anything like that on a large scale.

Eliminating predators would cause more animals to starve to death and would mess up the web of life in countless unknown ways. We need quantum computers, robots and AI to micromanage everything to really do anything about predation (without causing more suffering)

Plus, with the right technology and enough resources there is no need for predators to go extinct in order to end predation and we may come into those resources and that technology in the future.

But isn't the fact that 100 prey die for 1 predator to live in itself unethical? Try to apply anti-speciesism. Would it be ok for 100 humans to painlessly die for 1 human to live?

 

[nobody]

But isn't the fact that 100 prey die for 1 predator to live in itself unethical? Try to apply anti-speciesism. Would it be ok for 100 humans to painlessly die for 1 human to live?

It isn't right because nature/the universe isn't right. This is not a nice or fair place. But you make something right properly or not at all. And to make this right, properly, we need more technology, more resources and more knowledge, a lot more.

 

[JacobVeganism]

It isn't right because nature/the universe isn't right. This is not a nice or fair place. But you make something right properly or not at all. And to make this right, properly, we need more technology, more resources and more knowledge, a lot more.

I understand your point, but your missing mine. You say you consider suffering as the prime factor in ethics, yet we still consider painless murder wrong? Why do you think that this is?

 

[nobody]

I understand your point, but your missing mine. You say you consider suffering as the prime factor in ethics, yet we still consider painless murder wrong? Why do you think that this is?

I said that? Where/when? Painless murder/slaughter is wrong because it deprives someone of their life. Once alive, they have an interest in continuing to live until old age. Killing them thwarts that interest so it is wrong. If it is an animal that is already being slowly ripped apart by predators it would be a mercy killlng at that point to shoot it and then let the predators eat. That's what I meant by "painless slaughter" in my previous post about the baby elephant. I'm not really sure where you're going with that phrase or what point you're making.

 

[JacobVeganism]

I said that? Where/when? Painless murder/slaughter is wrong because it deprives someone of their life. Once alive, they have an interest in continuing to live until old age. Killing them thwarts that interest so it is wrong. If it is an animal that is already being slowly ripped apart by predators it would be a mercy killlng at that point to shoot it and then let the predators eat. That's what I meant by "painless slaughter" in my previous post about the baby elephant. I'm not really sure where you're going with that phrase or what point you're making.

The point I'm making is that if you hold this view, then surely the ideal is that of a world without predators. That way, less beings have to die prematurely.

 

[nobody]

The point I'm making is that if you hold this view, then surely the ideal is that of a world without predators. That way, less beings have to die prematurely.

Or the ideal is a world where non-sentient biological robots made of cultured muscle tissue and organs are delivered to predators so they can eat without requiring the death of sentient prey animals, whose numbers would then need to be controlled artificially to compensate.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Or the ideal is a world where non-sentient biological robots made of cultured muscle tissue and organs are delivered to predators so they can eat without requiring the death of sentient prey animals, whose numbers would then need to be controlled artificially to conpensate.

Sorry, I forgot you mentioned this earlier and it truly would be incredible - but we cannot possibly know if such contraptions are even possible or if they will ever exist. I think talking about practicality currently only results in isolation within the community, so maybe this issue should only be looked into further once we have a vegan society. After all, we are not causing wild suffering so therefore it is not as much of a priority as what we a currently causing directly (although it is still bad).

 

[nobody]

After all, we are not causing wild suffering so therefore it is not as much of a priority as what we a currently causing directly (although it is still bad).

Since we are vegans, we are personally not causing farm animal suffering either anymore (except when our taxes subsidize animal agriculture) but we still care about farm animals, so why should the suffering of wild animals, which we are also not causing, be any different? (Well actually, with global warming, we made the already bad state of affairs regarding WAS even worse, so we are responsible for some of it.)

But anyway, there are a lot of ways we can help wild animals that aren't related to predation, like oral contraceptives for poplation control to prevent starvation and inoculations for disease, etc., so this isn't all about predation.

Wild animals are capable of suffering just as much as farm animals, and they are exploited by humans almost as much, so promoting concern for them is a good thing and will help farm animals I think, because animals are animals, and whether domesticated or wild, both are treated as resources currently. If omnivores think about WAS more I think it will help them appreciate the plight of farm animals more and vice versa, which should help the cause.

 

[Mischief]

My thoughts:

1. As the species which causes the most suffering in the world, it behooves us to clean up our own act before we start sticking our noses into other species' conduct. IOW, get humans to stop slaughtering, using and abusing other species, and get us to stop destroying habitat and to restore what we have destroyed before you even think about trying to control predation by other species. Anything less is hypocritical assholery.

2. This whole attitude about controlling other species is just another facet of the human hubris that results in humans thinking that we have the right to determine other species' fates for them, that we have the right to determine who lives and who dies, and how these "others" live and die. It's just plain arrogant.

 

[JacobVeganism]

My thoughts:

1. As the species which causes the most suffering in the world, it behooves us to clean up our own act before we start sticking our noses into other species' conduct. IOW, get humans to stop slaughtering, using and abusing other species, and get us to stop destroying habitat and to restore what we have destroyed before you even think about trying to control predation by other species. Anything less is hypocritical assholery.

2. This whole attitude about controlling other species is just another facet of the human hubris that results in humans thinking that we have the right to determine other species' fates for them, that we have the right to determine who lives and who dies, and how these "others" live and die. It's just plain arrogant.

Would it be arrogant to arrest a murderer on the loose? "You don't decide who loves and who dies". Well yes, we should. And when there is suffering involved we definitely should.

 

[Mischief]

Would it be arrogant to arrest a murderer on the loose? "You don't decide who loves and who dies". Well yes, we should. And when there is suffering involved we definitely should.

Go ahead and arrest as many murderers as you like. But please see my point number 1, which you are conveniently ignoring.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Go ahead and arrest as many murderers as you like. But please see my point number 1, which you are conveniently ignoring.

Oh I completely agree with point one, I just was hoping you don't use number 2 to ignore the suffering in the wild, once we gain a vegan society.