natural disvalue: why animal suffering is overwhelmingly prevalent in nature

1

Natural Disvalue

Natural Disvalue: Why Animal Suffering Is Overwhelmingly Prevalent

in Nature

Oscar HortaUniversity of Santiago de Compostela

OHorta@dilemata.net

usc-es.academia.edu/OscarHorta

2

Natural Disvalue

Introduction: The Case of Natural Hell

Natural Hell. An untouched natural environment in which a huge number of sentient beings suffer extremely and die

prematurely.

Paradise from Intervention. Natural processes taking place in Natural Hell are significantly

altered. Sentient beings now live in paradisiacal conditions.

It would be good to move from Natural Hell to Paradise from

Intervention.

3

Natural Disvalue

Positions against Intervention

(1) The Idyllic View. Nature isn’t Natural Hell, but paradise

(2) The Speciesist View. Who cares about nonhuman animals?

(4) The Pessimistic View. Intervention cannot succeed

(3) The Environmentalist View. Thou shalt not alter nature

4

Natural Disvalue

The Idyllic View

“Nature is Paradise”

5

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

The argument from the idyllic view (strong version). Living in nature is good for all animals,

even if their lives just contain suffering and premature death.

The argument from the idyllic view (weak version). On the overall, in nature wellbeing outweighs

suffering.The strong version is unacceptable if we believe wellbeing is valuable.

The weak version is wrong.

6

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

Verhulst equation of population dynamics:

dN/dt = rN(1-N/K)

t: a certain period of time

N: the initial population size when t starts

r: the reproductive rate

K: the carrying capacity of the environment for this population

7

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

For a certain time t,

a population whose initial number was N

will vary depending on two things:

r: how many offsprings are born; and

K: the survival rate of the offsprings

dN/dt = rN(1-N/K)

8

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

r: how many offsprings are born

K: the survival rate of the offsprings

According to this, there are two main reproductive strategies:

Maximize K: K-selection

Maximize r: r-selection

9

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

On average, if a population is stable, just 1 individual per parent survives. So r-selection

works as follows:

2 individuals at time 0g 10,000 individuals at time i

g 2 individuals at time t

Where do the other 9,998 go?

Many, often most of them die shortly. In misery.

Suffering is thus maximized for these animals.

10

Natural Disvalue

11

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

r-selection is vastly prevalent in nature. K-selection is an exception.

Most animals have huge litters or clutches:

· Bullfrogs can lay up to 20,000 eggs

· Cods can lay up to 9,000,000 eggs

· Sunfishes can lay up to 300,000,000 eggs

Most species follow a reproductive strategy that entails that most of their members die very soon.

12

Natural Disvalue

Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong

The overwhelming majority of the animals who come to existence are babies who die in misery

shortly after.

In addition, adult animals often suffer greatly too due to other reasons, including: predation, parasitism, disease, injuries, harsh weather

conditions, hunger and malnutrition, thirst, fear, distress, sorrow, etc.

Due to this, the idyllic view of nature is wrong.

In fact, it is very wrong.

Suffering enormously outweighs wellbeing in nature.

13

Natural Disvalue

14

Natural Disvalue

The Speciesist View

“Who Cares aboutNonhuman

Animals?”

15

Natural Disvalue

The speciesist argument. We should not intervene in nature because wild animals’ interests count for little

or nothing.If we cared just a little for wild animals, we should help them, because their aggregate interests would count a

lot.

The speciesist argument just works if it entails that no consideration at all is given to nonhuman animals.

What does the Speciesist View entail?

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

According to these views, wellbeing is what counts (regardless of the account of wellbeing we

defend).

Speciesism is unacceptable for any view concerned with wellbeing (egalitarianism, utilitarianism, maximin views,

etc.)

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

Nonhuman animals have a wellbeing.

Hence, the harms suffered by wild animals matters.

16

Natural Disvalue

1. Wellbeing Matters

In such a situation we would all prefer to be helped rather than dying in

misery.

We can perfectly imagine a situation in which we were in the position in which wild animals

are.

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

If we did not know if we were to be born as humans or as wild animals, we would prefer animals to be

helped.

Hence, impartiality requires helping wild animals.

17

Natural Disvalue

2. Impartiality Blocks Speciesism

In other cases is defended by means of an appeal to criteria that cannot be

verified.

Speciesism is often defended in a definitional way.

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

All these views just beg the question.

18

Natural Disvalue

3. No Argument for Speciesism Succeeds (i):

Begging the Question

However, given any non-definitional capacity or relation, there will be

humans who lack it.

Speciesism is also defended by claiming that only humans have certain capacities or

relations.

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

These views fail to justify speciesism.

19

Natural Disvalue

4. No Argument for Speciesism Succeeds (ii):

Species Overlap

Speciesism is untenable.

Almost everyone would help humans who were agonizing in the

wild.

Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable

We should also help nonhumans agonizing in the wild.

20

Natural Disvalue

Because nonhumans suffering in the wild is so huge, helping them is a very important task.

21

Natural Disvalue

The Environmentalist View

“Thou Shalt Not Alter Nature”

22

Natural Disvalue

The Environmentalist View Is Unacceptable

The environmentalist argument. Natural processes, or other entities that exist due to

them such as species, biocenoses or ecosystems are valuable.

This argument only opposes intervention if it is carried out by destroying nature. Not if it just

modifies it.

23

Natural Disvalue

The Environmentalist View Is Unacceptable

The (qualified) environmentalist argument. Certain natural processes, or of other entities that exist due to them such as species, biocenoses or ecosystems

are valuable.

This view is wrong regarding value.

Individuals, not processes, groups of individuals or systems, are the real locations of value, and the ones to

care for.

24

Natural Disvalue

The Environmentalist View Is Unacceptable

The environmental argument is defended for speciesist

reasons.Housing the Homeless. New houses are built for the homeless in a place where

there were no human constructions before.

If opposing Housing the Homeless is wrong, then opposing intervention to help wild animals must be

wrong too. Would environmentalist applaud Natural Hell for

humans?

The Environmentalist View must be rejected.

25

Natural Disvalue

The Pessimistic View “Intervention Cannot Succeed”

26

Natural Disvalue

Why the Pessimistic View Is too

Pessimistic The argument from helplessness (strong version). It is impossible to reduce suffering and death in

nature.

The argument from helplessness (weak version). It is impossible to end suffering and death in nature.

The strong version is wrong.

The weak version does not entail that it wouldn’t be good to reduce the disvalue in nature.

27

Natural Disvalue

Why the Pessimistic View Is too

Pessimistic Some examples of interventions:

1. Koala assisted during a fire2. Kangaroo saved from a flood

3. Massive drowning of wildebeests who could have been saved

4. Baby elephant and mother saved from a mud pond where they would have

died5. Primatologists vaccinating

chimpanzees against polio6. Massive vaccination of animals living

in the wild against rabies

28

Natural Disvalue

29

Natural Disvalue

30

Natural Disvalue

31

Natural Disvalue

32

Natural Disvalue

33

Natural Disvalue

34

Natural Disvalue

Why the Pessimistic View Is too

Pessimistic The argument from unexpected consequences

(strong version). Intervention will have unforeseen effects which could be catastrophic.

The argument from unexpected consequences (weak version). Intervention may have unforeseen

effects which could be catastrophic.

The strong version is self-defeating.

The weak version contradicts the strong one.

The Pessimistic View is too optimistic regarding how things actually are in

nature.

35

Natural Disvalue

Why the Pessimistic View Is too

Pessimistic Real World. On average, for each animal that

reproduces only 1 of her/his offspring survives. Given an offspring of 10,000 animals, 9,998 of them die,

only 2 of them survive.

Massive Death. Total animal population is reduced to half.

Massive Death is exactly like Real World except for one respect: instead of 9,998 animals, 9,999 animals

agonize. Only 1 of them survives.Real World is basically like Massive Death:

the current situation is already catastrophic.

36

Natural Disvalue

Conclusion

The Case for Intervention

37

Natural Disvalue

We Should Help Wild Animals

It would be a good thing to alter natural processes to reduce the suffering and death of nonhuman

animals.

So this is surely the right thing to do.

In practical terms, the most cost-efficient course of action today is not to intervene in any significant

way yet, but:

· to question speciesism

·to spread the interventionist meme

·to support those interventions currently feasible

·to do research on ways to help wild animals

38

Natural Disvalue

Thank you!