Wild Animal Suffering

[nobody]

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.

1. This is about wild animal suffering, not other species' conduct. If there is a villian here it is the messed up universe/natural world or whoever/whatever is responsible for it, if anything. Not lions. If we get omnivores to care about wild animals I think it will spill over and help them to care about farm animals more as well. Also, it shores up the animal rights argument e. g., "all animals are equally important and all need our help, so stop appealing to nature."

2. This isn't controlling other species, it's controlling the bad stuff inherent in living in the world. Humans are good at that and animals need for us to use our skills to help them. Do you have a problem with any of these activities?

-Rescuing trapped animals

-Vaccinating and healing sick animals

-Helping animals in fires and natural disasters

-Providing for the basic needs of animals

-Caring for orphaned animals

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

There is a lot of footage online of female big cats, like lionesses or cheetah, caring for baby prey animals after killing and eating their mothers, licking and snuggling with them for a period of hours, before the prey animal dies and is then consumed by that cat or others. These lionesses don't want to orphan the cute young animals and they need our help. We are the only species who could ever possibly feed these cats some kind cultured meat replacement, but I am proposing tackling predation last because it is by far the hardest. Also, when we do start doing it, we can probably skip the cultured meat replacement mosquitos for frogs to eat and just let them continue eating the real thing. We wouldn't need to replace all predation.

 

[Sax]

We don't have a moral obligation to protect animals from nature and the hardships it holds. It's sad that animals suffer in the wild but systematically interfering with ecosystems in an attempt to force our values onto nature is, as @Mischief, just plain arrogant.

 

[JacobVeganism]

We don't have a moral obligation to protect animals from nature and the hardships it holds. It's sad that animals suffer in the wild but systematically interfering with ecosystems in an attempt to force our values onto nature is, as @Mischief, just plain arrogant.

Again, what makes this different to arresting murderers. We aren't CAUSING the murder, is it not our responsibility to end it? I understand that practically it is difficult, but purely on grounds of ethics, I think we do have a responsibility to at least consider, and try to research into this more.

 

[Sax]

Applying human values to human society is very different from applying human values to nature/ecology.

Also, humans don't need to murder to survive.

I'm not a utilitarian, I don't think minimizing suffering is the highest goal. If we can avoid inflicting suffering that's the extent of our responsibility.

 

[nobody]

...in an attempt to force our values onto nature is, as @Mischief, just plain arrogant.

I think animals share our values as far as suffering. They dislike it, just as much as we do. So how is it forcing our values on them to attempt to allieviate it?

 

[JacobVeganism]

Applying human values to human society is very different from applying human values to nature/ecology.

Also, humans don't need to murder to survive.

I'm not a utilitarian, I don't think minimizing suffering is the highest goal. If we can avoid inflicting suffering that's the extent of our responsibility.

I agree, it is certainly different, but you don't have to be utilitarian to believe that sentient beings have a preference to avoid pain, and it is deontologically right to attempt to, as @nobody says, "alleviate it".

 

[Mischief]

I think animals share our values as far as suffering. They dislike it, just as much as we do. So how is it forcing our values on them to attempt to allieviate it?

Because you're making other nonhuman animals pay for it. Save a prey animal from being killed by a predator animal = starve the predator animal.

Why don't you concentrate on stopping the tremendous harm your species continues to do, and then try to repair the many centuries of harm your species has done? After you have accomplished that, you might have an ethical leg to stand on wrt other species, but not before then.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Because you're making other nonhuman animals pay for it. Save a prey animal from being killed by a predator animal = starve the predator animal.

Why don't you concentrate on stopping the tremendous harm your species continues to do, and then try to repair the many centuries of harm your species has done? After you have accomplished that, you might have an ethical leg to stand on wrt other species, but not before then.

I am causing no harm, therefore I have as much responsibility to prevent meat eaters from eating meat, as I have to prevent predators from causing suffering. I see your point but I am promoting research in this regard, and social change In regards to eating meat. I'm campaigning for both

 

[nobody]

Because you're making other nonhuman animals pay for it. Save a prey animal from being killed by a predator animal = starve the predator animal.

Why don't you concentrate on stopping the tremendous harm your species continues to do, and then try to repair the many centuries of harm your species has done? After you have accomplished that, you might have an ethical leg to stand on wrt other species, but not before then.

Nothing like what you are saying has been suggested by me in this thread. I think it has been three posts now that I have stated what the predators would be eating if any prey animals at all were saved by us - non-sentient biological meat bots, stupid cultured meat robots with limited brains, or maybe just cultured meat in the early days of it.

As I stated several times on page 1 of this thread, saving prey animals isn't anything that can be done without a lot more technology, resources and knowledge. Perhaps we won't be ready to save any prey animals for many hundreds of years. But in the meantime we can help wild animals in these ways, and we do:

-Rescuing trapped animals

-Vaccinating and healing sick animals

-Helping animals in fires and natural disasters

-Providing for the basic needs of animals

-Caring for orphaned animals

Do you have a problem with those activities and does one need an ethical leg to stand on to perform them? I'm not understanding the ethical leg comment.

 

[JacobVeganism]

@nobody I'm curious as to what your thoughts are regarding crop deaths? Obviously a boycott wouldn't prevent this, as we would only replace our diet with other crops, but technically if we were to each grow our own food, it would reduce suffering immeasurably. My view: it is better to spend time promoting non-speciesist attitudes, which will in turn result in ethical procedures in crop production. Modern society requires that not everyone has time or money to grow their own food, which is why efficiency is required in order to avoid starvation. How do you suggest we combat this suffering, regarding pesticides (bug murder for our food) and combine harvesters (which brutally kill mice and hares).

 

[nobody]

@nobody I'm curious as to what your thoughts are regarding crop deaths? Obviously a boycott wouldn't prevent this, as we would only replace our diet with other crops, but technically if we were to each grow our own food, it would reduce suffering immeasurably. My view: it is better to spend time promoting non-speciesist attitudes, which will in turn result in ethical procedures in crop production. Modern society requires that not everyone has time or money to grow their own food, which is why efficiency is required in order to avoid starvation. How do you suggest we combat this suffering, regarding pesticides (bug murder for our food) and combine harvesters (which brutally kill mice and hares).

Even though insects and other lower invertebrates are in my circle of compassion, they are near the outer edge and vertebrates and higher invertebrates are in the center. The animals in the center are most important to me and I think showing too much concern for the bugs trivializes animal rights to omnivores. So therefore, use pesticides or kill bugs some other way. Or, make some technological advancement that will save the bugs but don't make a big deal about it.

As far as combine harvesters killing mice and hares, i have no farming experience and no idea, but this sounds like a good place to direct effort toward saving wild animals, since we're directly causing it.

Maybe we can make robots with infra-red cameras for detecting heat signatures that will go and scoop up and relocate, or shoo away the animals before the harvester comes through. I don't know but that's just a spit ball.

 

[JacobVeganism]

Even though insects and other lower invertebrates are in my circle of compassion, they are near the outer edge and vertebrates and higher invertebrates are in the center. The animals in the center are most important to me and I think showing too much concern for the bugs trivializes animal rights to omnivores. So therefore, use pesticides or kill bugs some other way. Or, make some technological advancement that will save the bugs but don't make a big deal about it.

As far as combine harvesters killing mice and hares, i have no farming experience and no idea, but this sounds like a good place to direct effort toward saving wild animals, since we're directly causing it.

Maybe we can make robots with infra-red cameras for detecting heat signatures that will go and scoop up and relocate, or shoo away the animals before the harvester comes through. I don't know but that's just a spit ball.

There are certainly preventative methods that should be implemented. I agree with your stance on bugs; consider them but don't prioritise, purely because of there reduced sentience.

 

[Mischief]

I am causing no harm, therefore I have as much responsibility to prevent meat eaters from eating meat, as I have to prevent predators from causing suffering. I see your point but I am promoting research in this regard, and social change In regards to eating meat. I'm campaigning for both

Of course you're causing harm - all humans are. You're living on what used to be natural habitat for nonhuman species. Everything you use and consume causes habitat destruction and nonhuman animal death, and unlike every other non-parasite species, we humans contribute nothing positive back to the ecosystem.

An individual who wants to control what other species do is akin to an individual whose family members are busy raping, beating up, and killing each other, and who shrugs his shoulders and says, "Not my problem, I'm not the one causing that harm. Let me go to this other country and preach to those benighted savages over there, because that will make me feel good and powerful."

 

[Mischief]

Nothing like what you are saying has been suggested by me in this thread. I think it has been three posts now that I have stated what the predators would be eating if any prey animals at all were saved by us - non-sentient biological meat bots, stupid cultured meat robots with limited brains, or maybe just cultured meat in the early days of it.

As I stated several times on page 1 of this thread, saving prey animals isn't anything that can be done without a lot more technology, resources and knowledge. Perhaps we won't be ready to save any prey animals for many hundreds of years. But in the meantime we can help wild animals in these ways, and we do:

-Rescuing trapped animals

-Vaccinating and healing sick animals

-Helping animals in fires and natural disasters

-Providing for the basic needs of animals

-Caring for orphaned animals

Do you have a problem with those activities and does one need an ethical leg to stand on to perform them? I'm not understanding the ethical leg comment.

I don't have a problem with doing anything to help that isn't at the cost of others.

 

[nobody]

I don't have a problem with doing anything to help that isn't at the cost of others.

I have not suggested helping animals in any way that would be a "cost" to them. Do you consider it a cost to have access to food, water, dental/medical care and freedom from predation and unwanted aggression?

 

[silva]

I have not suggested helping animals in any way that would be a "cost" to them. Do you consider it a cost to have access to food, water, dental/medical care and freedom from predation and unwanted aggression?

You just hypothesized feeding carnivores "meat-bots" How on earth is not a cost to them?
And just how are you proposing feeding the herbivores? I believe you also proposed giving them birth control?
This thread is nothing but specists playing gods.
Take care of your species, whose interference has already done enough harm

 

[nobody]

You just hypothesized feeding carnivores "meat-bots" How on earth is not a cost to them?
And just how are you proposing feeding the herbivores? I believe you also proposed giving them birth control?
This thread is nothing but specists playing gods.
Take care of your species, whose interference has already done enough harm

Ideally the proposed meatbots would mimic the behaviour of real prey animals adequately. I'm not sure why eating them instead of real animals would be a cost to the predators and you have not explained it at all.

If there is a shortage of a herbivore's natural plant food due to drought or something, I am proposing feeding them with the speculated more abundant technology, resources and knowledge available to us at the time. Maybe certain robots have built in replicators like on Star Trek that can produce the herbivore's favorite food on the spot.

The important thing right now is to establish what should be done if we are able, not to figure out how to do everything with today's limited technology, resources and knowledge.

And birth control yes, so some r-selected animal, instead of having hundreds of siblings being eaten alive in childhood, will have a couple siblings that make it to adulthood and die of old age. What's wrong with that?

 

[Nekodaiden]

If I am getting the gist of this right, Jacob's argument seems to rest on the notion of "speciesism", the assumption that it's wrong, and the drive to correct it - in nature.

I've long disliked the "speciesist" argument (some) vegans make when trying to win converts. You know the "you wouldn't let your (insert pet here) be subject to X,Y,Z or you wouldn't eat it, so why allow/approve of (non pet animal here) to be treated the same?"

It's only as good as far as that comparison is made. Taking the premise to it's logical conclusion basically puts all animals (including humans, since we are also animals) on the same footing. If that's the value, then 3 starving lions would outweigh 1 human and therefore it would be "right" to give up/feed the human to the lions simply on the numbers. That fits the "non-speciesist" idea but in our culture and law this is rightly called "murder".

 

[silva]

If I am getting the gist of this right, Jacob's argument seems to rest on the notion of "speciesism", the assumption that it's wrong, and the drive to correct it - in nature.

I've long disliked the "speciesist" argument (some) vegans make when trying to win converts. You know the "you wouldn't let your (insert pet here) be subject to X,Y,Z or you wouldn't eat it, so why allow/approve of (non pet animal here) to be treated the same?"

It's only as good as far as that comparison is made. Taking the premise to it's logical conclusion basically puts all animals (including humans, since we are also animals) on the same footing. If that's the value, then 3 starving lions would outweigh 1 human and therefore it would be "right" to give up/feed the human to the lions simply on the numbers. That fits the "non-speciesist" idea but in our culture and law this is rightly called "murder".

I have never heard that argument, from an honest person, meant towards anyone but humans
Why would you infer that every animal species be aligned to human behavior other than to be argumentative?
I think you know the argument isn't "to be treated the same", but why eat one and the other, since as humans we have no need to eat either

 

[nobody]

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.

I completely disagree with point one. If we are looking at the subject of predation correctly, it is a matter of suffering, not a matter of unethical conduct perpetrated by predators. There is no basis for comparison between human omnivores by choice and wild predators. So saying we need universal veganism before doing something about predation makes as much sense as saying we need universal veganism before doing any of these things to help wild animals:

-Rescuing trapped animals

-Vaccinating and healing sick animals

-Helping animals in fires and natural disasters

-Providing for the basic needs of animals

-Caring for orphaned animals

We will probably have universal prosperity and veganism long before we are able to deal with predation, but that is not to say there is any logical reason for having a prerequisite like that for addressing predation but not for the other ways of helping wild animals listed above.