Natural Disvalue: Why Animal Suffering Is Overwhelmingly Prevalent in Nature

1. Natural Disvalue: Why Animal Suffering Is Overwhelmingly Prevalent in Nature Oscar Horta University of Santiago de Compostela OHorta@dilemata.net usc-es.academia.edu/OscarHorta Natural Disvalue

2. 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. Natural Disvalue

3. Positions against Intervention (1) The Idyllic View. Nature isn’t Natural Hell, but paradise (2) The Speciesist View. Who cares about nonhuman animals? (3) The Environmentalist View. Thou shalt not alter nature (4) The Pessimistic View. Intervention cannot succeed Natural Disvalue

4. The Idyllic View “Nature is Paradise” Natural Disvalue

5. 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. Natural Disvalue

6. 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 Natural Disvalue

7. Why the Idyllic View Is Wrong dN/dt = rN(1-N/K) 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 Natural Disvalue

8. 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 Natural Disvalue

9. 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 0 g10,000 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. Natural Disvalue

10. Natural Disvalue

11. 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. Natural Disvalue

12. 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. Natural Disvalue

13. Natural Disvalue

14. The Speciesist View “Who Cares about Nonhuman Animals?” Natural Disvalue

15. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable What does the Speciesist View entail? 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. Natural Disvalue

16. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable 1. Wellbeing Matters Speciesism is unacceptable for any view concerned with wellbeing (egalitarianism, utilitarianism, maximin views, etc.) According to these views, wellbeing is what counts (regardless of the account of wellbeing we defend). Nonhuman animals have a wellbeing. Hence, the harms suffered by wild animals matters. Natural Disvalue

17. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable 2. Impartiality Blocks Speciesism We can perfectly imagine a situation in which we were in the position in which wild animals are. In such a situation we would all prefer to be helped rather than dying in misery. 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. Natural Disvalue

18. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable 3. No Argument for Speciesism Succeeds (i): Begging the Question Speciesism is often defended in a definitional way. In other cases is defended by means of an appeal to criteria that cannot be verified. All these views just beg the question. Natural Disvalue

19. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable 4. No Argument for Speciesism Succeeds (ii): Species Overlap Speciesism is also defended by claiming that only humans have certain capacities or relations. However, given any non-definitional capacity or relation, there will be humans who lack it. These views fail to justify speciesism. Natural Disvalue

20. Why the Speciesist View Is Unacceptable Almost everyone would help humans who were agonizing in the wild. Speciesism is untenable. We should also help nonhumans agonizing in the wild. Because nonhumans suffering in the wild is so huge, helping them is a very important task. Natural Disvalue

21. The Environmentalist View “Thou Shalt Not Alter Nature” Natural Disvalue

22. 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. Natural Disvalue

23. 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. Natural Disvalue

24. 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. Natural Disvalue

25. The Pessimistic View“Intervention Cannot Succeed” Natural Disvalue

26. 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. Natural Disvalue

27. Why the Pessimistic View Is too Pessimistic Some examples of interventions: Koala assisted during a fire Kangaroo saved from a flood Massive drowning of wildebeests who could have been saved Baby elephant and mother saved from a mud pond where they would have died Primatologists vaccinating chimpanzees against polio Massive vaccination of animals living in the wild against rabies Natural Disvalue

28. Natural Disvalue

29. Natural Disvalue

30. Natural Disvalue

31. Natural Disvalue

32. Natural Disvalue

33. Natural Disvalue

34. 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. Natural Disvalue

35. 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. Natural Disvalue

36. Conclusion The Case for Intervention Natural Disvalue

37. 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 Natural Disvalue

38. Thank you! Natural Disvalue