Suffering in nature

Alan Dawrst · Jul 11, 2009

I went vegetarian (no meat or eggs) after reading Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. I was astonished when I first learned about the 9 billion chickens that suffer through life in factory farms each year in the US. (I focus on chickens here because almost all of the animals raised in land-based factory farms are chickens.)

As bad as this is, the number of animals enduring disease, injury, and brutal slaughter in the wild is greater many times over. If our goal is ultimately to reduce suffering as much as possible, it may be that we ought to focus our efforts on wild animals, since their total suffering far exceeds the human-caused suffering on factory farms, in laboratories, or on fur farms combined.

It's not obvious what ought to be done about the problem. With some exceptions, trying to intervene in nature -- e.g., to prevent snakes from eating mice -- might end up causing more harm than good, especially given humans' limited knowledge of ecology and past record of success with engineering nature. However, human actions related to habitat preservation, invasive-species introduction, land use, and so on have huge impacts on the number of wild animals that exist and the types of ecosystems in which they live, and it seems only responsible to consider the effects of these actions on wild-animal suffering. More speculative futuristic scenarios like terraforming or directed panspermia could also vastly increase the number of animals enduring sickness and predation in the wild, and I hope that future humans will consider these impacts carefully before undertaking such ventures.

Perhaps the best we can do now is to encourage people to think more about wild-animal suffering and see it as a serious moral concern -- a challenge to be solved by human technological progress, like cancer or AIDS. Any thoughts? Does anyone know of organizations working to promote concern about this issue, among academics, activists, and/or the general public?

Sevenseas · Jul 12, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

since their total suffering far exceeds the human-caused suffering on factory farms, in laboratories, or on fur farms combined.

I don't know if that's the case. For one, wild animals don't have to spend their whole lives in captivity, deprived of conspecifics or of enough room to turn around.

Semicharmed · Jul 12, 2009

I may be in the minority...

But I think any human-driven endeavor (aside from the Butt the Heck Out mindset) that attempted to "fix" suffering in nature (even if some portion of it was a result of us introducing certain foreign species to new habitats, etc.) would be a SHINING example of one thing:

Hubris.

Alan Dawrst · Jul 12, 2009

Thanks for the comments! Sevenseas, I don't think most individual wild animals suffer as much as most factory-farmed animals, but the number of wild animals is orders of magnitude greater, so when added up, the total amount of suffering is much bigger. This piece gives examples of the types of pain and stress that wild animals endure on a regular basis.

African_Prince · Jul 13, 2009

The best thing we can do for wild animals, I think, is 1) stop encroaching on their territories with our massive deforestation and 2) to drastically reduce, eventually eliminate, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that we are responsible for. In both cases, lowering our population would help. Of course we shouldn't hunt them either.

Outside of that, they have their own separate societies. We can't have any meaningful interaction with most of them.

Alan Dawrst · Jul 13, 2009

African_Prince, what about the possibility that wild animals would be better off not existing? I don't know if that's true, but the idea shouldn't be too strange, because the non-environmental utilitarian argument in favor of vegetarianism is that factory-farmed animals would be better off not existing. If wild-animal lives aren't worth living, then it's not obvious that encroaching on their territories is bad, at least in the long run. This is all, of course, rather speculative, but these seem like important questions to explore....

Eugene · Jul 13, 2009

We already have a world without suffering, and we call it the moon. If our only goal was to reduce suffering, then the destruction of all life in the Universe would be viewed as positive development, as this would be the only way to ensure that no individual ever suffered ever again. However, since this is a blatantly false conclusion, this demonstrates that there must be more to morality than just the reduction of suffering.

However, that said, it should be noted that the suffering per animal created in modern animal agriculture far exceeds almost anything in the predator/prey relations in nature. And when you multiply the suffering per animal by the number of animals (billions per year in animal agriculture), I would argue that the total amount of suffering created by factory farming and slaughterhouses far exceeds the total amount of suffering in nature of all wild animals combined.

Furthermore, the problem of factory farming and slaughterhouses is a problem we actually know how to fix, since we are the ones creating the problem in the first place. On the other hand, even if we wanted to, it is not entirely clear how to go about solving the suffering of animals in nature which was not caused by human activity. Hence, our efforts need to first be focused on putting an end to factory farming and slaughterhouses by getting people to go vegetarian.

As a theoretical matter, it might be interesting to speculate on, once the above task is accomplished, what our moral duties will be to reduce the suffering of wild animals, which humans had no role in causing. However, this is a much, much, MUCH lower priority than is dealing with the current problem which we ourselves are responsible for perpetuating.

Personally, I think that there are some cases where it is appropriate to assist wild animals even though they are not the victims of human activity. However, I dont think that reducing suffering of wild animals by exterminating them is an ethical thing to do, for the reasons stated in my opening paragraph above.

-Eugene

Alan Dawrst · Jul 15, 2009

Quote:

However, since this is a blatantly false conclusion, this demonstrates that there must be more to morality than just the reduction of suffering.

True -- creating happy experiences is important as well.

Quote:

However, that said, it should be noted that the suffering per animal created in modern animal agriculture far exceeds almost anything in the predator/prey relations in nature.

I agree that some instances of slaughter on factory farms can be pretty brutal. But in general, if I were a chicken, I would probably rather have my throat slit while hanging upside down than have my flesh torn apart by a racoon. And electrical stunning prior to poultry slaughter, while faulty in many cases, tends to be better than nothing. Death in the wild can take between 1 and ~20 minutes, as the table on p. 7 of this piece reports.

Of course, neither predation in the wild nor slaughter on factory farms is the worst part: Most of the suffering probably comes from day-to-day conditions of hunger, disease, and stress -- which I agree are generally much worse on factory farms than in the wild. (Still, there are some exceptions: Compare, say, a deer starving without food in the frigid winter against a broiler hen during the period when the birds are small enough that they aren't cramped should-to-shoulder.)

Quote:

And when you multiply the suffering per animal by the number of animals (billions per year in animal agriculture), I would argue that the total amount of suffering created by factory farming and slaughterhouses far exceeds the total amount of suffering in nature of all wild animals combined.

Comparing just suffering, I would be doubtful, since the number of mammals and birds alone in the wild is maybe an order of magnitude higher than the number on factory farms. And as that link notes, the number of reptiles, amphibians, and fish is potentially even greater. And if you assign nonzero probability to the possibility that insects can suffer, you have to multiply it by a population of 10^18 or 10^19, compared against 10^9 or 10^10 animals on factory farms.

Comparing happiness minus suffering, it may well be that factory farms are worse, because it's quite possible (though I'm personally skeptical) that wild animals experience more pleasure than pain. If this were true, the total amount of happiness in the wild would vastly exceed the amount of suffering on factory farms, just because of the numbers of animals involved. Of course, even in that case, it wouldn't imply that preventing animal suffering in the wild couldn't also be a priority -- if we had the technology to reduce it in ways other than to alter the number of wild animals in existence.

Quote:

Furthermore, the problem of factory farming and slaughterhouses is a problem we actually know how to fix, since we are the ones creating the problem in the first place. On the other hand, even if we wanted to, it is not entirely clear how to go about solving the suffering of animals in nature which was not caused by human activity.

Yes, this is a great point. Still, if the average happiness minus suffering of wild animals isn't zero, there would seem to be high expected value of information for figuring out on which side the balance lies, since humans have such a huge impact on the number of wild animals that exist. (Indeed, even the dominant animal impact of vegetarianism is probably through its effect on wild animals.) In addition, if there are plausible future technologies that could alleviate wild-animal suffering, it might be worthwhile to support the research that will make them possible, or perhaps lobby for such support by the government, so that the technologies can be developed sooner. Exactly how cost-effective this would be, I'm not sure.

In defense of your position, one could also point out that promoting vegetarianism is a way to expand the base of people who care about animal suffering in general and thereby the popular support for relieving wild-animal suffering if and when it does become possible. This is in fact the main reason I really like what Vegan Outreach does. So keep up the good work!

Eugene · Jul 15, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

True -- creating happy experiences is important as well.

It is more than that too. Having everyone turned into a chemically stimulated couch potato is not my idea of utopia. And even if it could be proven that there is more suffering than happiness on the Earth, and that this is the way it will always be, I would still be against destroying the planet.

As for the questions of how much animals in the wild suffer, there is the issue of the endorphins released in the brain of an animals when they are captured by a predator. And for the question of suffering on factory farms, you have to take into account practices such as debeaking and castration.

I think we are in agreement the suffering per animal animals is greater in factory farms than it is in the wild, but you are just concerned that about the total amount of suffering, given that the total number of wild animals is much higher. To this, I would argue that suffering is a non-linear phenomena. That is, the suffering of one person being tortured far more than exceeds the cumulative suffering of a quadrillion people sitting through root canals in a dentists office. So, given the intensity of suffering on factory farms, and the high quantity of animals involves, I think it is reasonable to suppose that this can easily exceed all other forms of suffering combined.

As for the idea of lobbying the government to fund research into the possibility of alleviating the suffering of wild animals in natural predator prey relations, I am sorry but I think that given the level of moral development of our present society with regards to animals, this idea is ludicrous (to say it mildly). Right now, the vast majority of the population is actively supporting the torture of animals (through their meat consumption), and the government is actually subsidizing this. We need to first get them to stop their own contribution to the problem, before we ask them for help in this type of project.

-Eugene

Alan Dawrst · Jul 15, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

Having everyone turned into a chemically stimulated couch potato is not my idea of utopia.

Well, we disagree philosophically here, but that's okay. In practice, I don't think we should turn into couch potatoes yet, because we have an obligation to prevent as much suffering as we can throughout the universe first. And wireheading, in principle, needn't be inconsistent with being productive at accomplishing other goals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

That is, the suffering of one person being tortured far more than exceeds the cumulative suffering of a quadrillion people sitting through root canals in a dentists office.

Hmm, I'm not sure. Which would you rather experience yourself: one act of torture or a quadrillion root canals? I think I would choose the torture, as awful as it would be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

As for the idea of lobbying the government to fund research into the possibility of alleviating the suffering of wild animals in natural predator prey relations, I am sorry but I think that given the level of moral development of our present society with regards to animals, this idea is ludicrous (to say it mildly).

Sure, you're right. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of building a base of long-term philosophical concern about the problem of suffering in nature, such that the issue could become mainstream in, say, 50 or 100 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

We need to first get them to stop their own contribution to the problem, before we ask them for help in this type of project.

I guess it's not obvious to me that people need to become vegetarians before they can support helping wild animals. Certainly reducing their contribution to the problem right now is good in its own right, but there's no inherent connection between dietary choices and ethical concern for animals. Indeed, we can hope that in 50 years, vegetarianism will be irrelevant, if in-vitro meat succeeds.

In some cases, the idea that "caring about animals" = "vegetarianism" may be harmful. One friend of mine said that the reason he hasn't yet extended his moral consideration to animals is that he's wary about the implications it would have for his diet. Giving up meat is difficult for some people, and it's hard to adopt a moral position that forces you to do something difficult. Since animal suffering is logically disjoint from eating choices, it seems to me we might want to emphasize the former over the latter, only pointing out that the latter happens to be an incidental consequence of the way meat is produced today.

Neoveggie · Jul 15, 2009

Nature should be left alone, it has evolved to achieve a delicate balance.I find this idea a bit strange. I agree with Eugene.

Thorham · Jul 16, 2009

To do something about the suffering in nature... I'm not even taking this nonesense serious

Eugene · Jul 16, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Well, we disagree philosophically here, but that's okay. In practice, I don't think we should turn into couch potatoes yet, because we have an obligation to prevent as much suffering as we can throughout the universe first. And wireheading, in principle, needn't be inconsistent with being productive at accomplishing other goals.

Ahha So, we cant turn our selves into chemically stimulated couch potatoes just quite yet, because it would interfere with the mission of converting every living being in the universe into a chemically stimulated coach potato, even if it is against their will. Or, if this task proves not to be technologically feasible, and we find out that life inherently involves more suffering than happiness, then we have to keep ourselves alive just long enough to destroy all life in the universe, and to destroy the potential for any new life to evolve in the future.

Utilitarianism is its own little private dogma: No imperial evidence for its axioms, and total disregards for its logical consequences. And when it comes to consequences, stuff like infanticide only scratches the surface.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Hmm, I'm not sure. Which would you rather experience yourself: one act of torture or a quadrillion root canals? I think I would choose the torture, as awful as it would be.

If you have ever experienced true suffering, the extremely intense kind, then I think you would conclude that no amount of root canals could possibly equal it. Lets make the example easier. Suppose the choices are experiencing once what it is like to slowly be tortured to death, or experiencing a mild case of stubbing your toe against the door a googolplex amount of times. I would much rather go for the googolplex mild foot stubbing experience in a heartbeat. Note: 1 googolplex = 10^(10^100).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Indeed, we can hope that in 50 years, vegetarianism will be irrelevant, if in-vitro meat succeeds.

We already have the moral equivalent of in vitro meat, and we call it veggie-burgers. So, the development of in-vitro meat wont change anything in this regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

In some cases, the idea that "caring about animals" = "vegetarianism" may be harmful. One friend of mine said that the reason he hasn't yet extended his moral consideration to animals is that he's wary about the implications it would have for his diet. Giving up meat is difficult for some people, and it's hard to adopt a moral position that forces you to do something difficult. Since animal suffering is logically disjoint from eating choices, it seems to me we might want to emphasize the former over the latter, only pointing out that the latter happens to be an incidental consequence of the way meat is produced today.

There are certain types of viewpoints that seem to thrive in academia, and are non-existent anywhere else on the planet. The view that we have no moral obligation to animals fits in this category. In my experience, hunters, cattle ranchers, etc, all believe that we do have at least some moral obligation to animals. For example, they would feel it is abhorrent to set a cat on fire for entertainment. However, they just dont make the logical connection to the necessity for vegetarianism.

So, from a strategic perspective, I would not worry about the people who think that we have no ethical obligation to animals, since almost no one in the real world (i.e. outside academia) actually believes this. Instead, we need to focus on demonstrating that people are morally required to go vegetarian even based on the ethics which they themselves already hold.

But, in any case, I think the job of a philosopher is not that of a politician. A philosopher should advocate the positions which he believes to actually be true, and not the ones which he feels will advance his political agenda. But, if you did want to advance positions just based on how effective they might be at moving the masses, you might want to reconsider using utilitarianism as a guide, since most of the population considers it to be an anathema, at least once they get past the rosy language about reducing suffering, and find out precisely what consequences it entails.

-Eugene

Alan Dawrst · Jul 16, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

Utilitarianism is its own little private dogma: No imperial evidence for its axioms, and total disregards for its logical consequences.

I personally don't see how there can be empirical evidence for any ethical axioms, since I regard morality as just the expression of particular desires by a particular organism at a particular time. Of course, those desires are observable. But if that's what we're debating, then I can say that I do feel intuitive sympathy with Benthamite utilitarianism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

Suppose the choices are experiencing once what it is like to slowly be tortured to death, or experiencing a mild case of stubbing your toe against the door a googolplex amount of times.

You might enjoy this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

We already have the moral equivalent of in vitro meat, and we call it veggie-burgers.

But it's not the nutritional equivalent. And even if it were, many meat eaters would claim not to like the taste.

This does suggest that, even with in-vitro meat, there may be some (many?) carnivores who insist that they prefer "the real thing." This is a valid concern. We can hope that society might eventually come to regard them the way (thanks to the animal-welfare movement) many regard those who eat veal as a delicacy. But you're right that we need to work to achieve this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eugene

So, from a strategic perspective, I would not worry about the people who think that we have no ethical obligation to animals, since almost no one in the real world (i.e. outside academia) actually believes this.

But many people (including vegetarians) think we have no ethical obligation to wild animals, which account for 99.99....% of all animals on the planet.

Sevenseas · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

I personally don't see how there can be empirical evidence for any ethical axioms

I agree.

Quote:

since I regard morality as just the expression of particular desires by a particular organism at a particular time.

I disagree. Why do you support emotivism?

Sevenseas · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Which would you rather experience yourself: one act of torture or a quadrillion root canals?

Experiencing many root canals in succession has a cumulative disutility: every root canal is that more harmful to you because you remember the displeasure from the previous ones. (Even though one could argue that one can get used to the procedure and find it less painful because of that.) So displeasure across persons vs. in a single person makes a difference to the utility value.

Alan Dawrst · Jul 17, 2009

Thanks for the comments, Sevenseas. Regarding the root canals, we could suppose, for the purpose of the thought experiment, that you have your memory erased after each successive occurrence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

I disagree. Why do you support emotivism?

Well, what else could be the case? Obviously organisms do have particular impulses at particular times, so the factual part of emotivism is undisputed. But what else could morality be?

Suppose there were some sort of "objective" ethics. Then the question would arise, Why should I care about it? How is it related to my choice of actions?

I suppose one could say that ethics simply exists, just like the universe exists. That's fine, but it doesn't tell me anything about what ethics means; the claim sounds no different from the statement, "Frebloaks exist."

Maybe ethics is "what you should do." But what does "should" mean? I suppose "should" could be just taken as a basic primitive that we simply can't explain. You could similarly ask, what does "exist" mean? Or what does a "true fact about the world" mean? I can't explain those words, yet I maintain that they mean something. So I suppose one could do the same with "should."

What's your position here?

Eugene · Jul 17, 2009

All your questions are answered in my "Objective Morality" website at

http://ar.vegnews.org/morals.html

I think it is unfortunate that the two of you don't believe in an objective morality (i.e. moral laws that exist independently of our beliefs in the same way that gravity exists independently of our beliefs.)

This is probably the source of much of my disagreement with the two of you.

And yes, I do believe that there is empirical evidence for the existence of such laws.

(See website for detailed explanation.)

-Eugene

Montyruth · Jul 17, 2009

I didn't become a vegetarian purely because I felt sorry about the animals, although that is one factor. A chicken may well prefer to die in an abattoir rather than being torn apart by a racoon but basically the racoon is being a racoon and I am free to be a human and not kill the chicken. To say that it would die more horribly in nature is a very pointless argument to me.

But to get to the other, more long-term reason for vegetarianism; the deforestation would be vastly reduced if people ate the plants instead of growing them for the meat industry. The greenhouse gases would also be vastly reduced if people ate the plants instead of growing them for the meat industry.

Few vegetarians are that way nowadays simply because eating dead animals is vile and unnecessary. Many are educated enough to see that it's actually the best way forward for our children, grandchildren and the future of the planet - if there's going to be one, that is.

Sevenseas · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Well, what else could be the case? Obviously organisms do have particular impulses at particular times, so the factual part of emotivism is undisputed. But what else could morality be?

The psychological or neurological or evolutionary explanation of morality is not the same as the metaethical explanation of morality, such as the proper characterization of moral language. Emotivism is one answer to the question "what is the linguistic function of moral utterances?"

Quote:

Suppose there were some sort of "objective" ethics. Then the question would arise, Why should I care about it? How is it related to my choice of actions?

Prescriptivism (i.e. the linguistic function of moral utterances is to guide actions, to prescribe) provides an intimate link between moral utterances and motivation to act on them, and yet it is of course distinct from emotivism.

I think "objective ethics" is hopelessly ambiguous an expression, and better replaced by others. What do we mean by the objectivity of an ethical norm?

Quote:

Maybe ethics is "what you should do." But what does "should" mean? I suppose "should" could be just taken as a basic primitive that we simply can't explain. You could similarly ask, what does "exist" mean? Or what does a "true fact about the world" mean? I can't explain those words, yet I maintain that they mean something. So I suppose one could do the same with "should."

What's your position here?

My position is that the linguistic function of moral utterances isn't reducible to descriptive non-moral statements (such as about utility value). But on the other hand, any metaethical position has to account for the logical relations between moral expressions. That is, moral statements follow traditional propositional and predicate logic ("all exploitation is wrong"; "act X constitutes exploitation"; Conclusion: "act X is wrong"). How do such relations exist between "peculiar tones of horror" or "exclamation marks"?

So I'm not sure, but I'm neither a moral realist nor an emotivist.

VeganTigress · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

I don't know if that's the case. For one, wild animals don't have to spend their whole lives in captivity, deprived of conspecifics or of enough room to turn around.

I completely agree here, wild animals have the ability to preform natural behaviors and have a quality of life greater than life in a industrial farm, lab or fur factory.

Animal in the wild are killed for survival. You do not see hunting for the sake of hunting.

The suffering I focus on is the suffering WE as humans cause to other animals.

Sevenseas · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Dawrst

Regarding the root canals, we could suppose, for the purpose of the thought experiment, that you have your memory erased after each successive occurrence.

When put in that way, it might indeed seem intuitive to prefer some torture to an arbitrary number of somewhat painful dental operations (I've never been through a root canal so I don't know what it feels like; never been through torture either).

But maybe that intuitiveness is deceptive. Maybe when we represent to ourselves the hypothetical scenario of multiple root canals in succession, with memory erasures in between them, we make the error of still implicitly presupposing a continuity between them that shouldn't be there; maybe as a flaw in our psychology we necessarily make a presupposition such as this.

Alan Dawrst · Jul 17, 2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montyruth

A chicken may well prefer to die in an abattoir rather than being torn apart by a racoon but basically the racoon is being a racoon and I am free to be a human and not kill the chicken. To say that it would die more horribly in nature is a very pointless argument to me.

That's fair. I guess my argument applies more to people who feel an obligation to engage in vegetarian outreach. Why should we try to prevent other people from eating meat? Because doing so will, among other things, prevent chickens from experiencing painful deaths in slaughterhouses. Why should we work toward a society that may one day be able, e.g., to alleviate the suffering of animals when they're eaten in the wild? Because doing so may, over the long run, prevent vast amounts of pain by wild animals.

The details of how to reduce suffering in nature are fuzzy. One speculative way of doing so might be to rewire animal nervous systems such that they're motivated by varying degrees of happiness rather than happiness vs. pain. Needless to say, such a project would require major technological advances that remain a long way off, and may require superintelligence. But we can set the seeds for them now, making sure that alleviating the vast amounts of suffering in nature is indeed a priority for humans of the future.

naitram · Oct 31, 2009

I don't want the animals to suffer. That's the main reason why I went veg. So to me it doesn't matter why they are suffering. And I agree, nature is very cruel. We have an obligation to help these animals as we have an obligation to help anyone at need.

The problem is that nature is too complex for one person to find out how to help wild animals. It is a bit like global warming. Climate is very complex, so you need many scientists dealing with that topic to find out what exactly are the consequences of global warming and what can be done to prevent them.

Today almost nobody cares about the suffering of wild living animals, not even vegans. So we should spread the idea that they also need our help. And when enough people deal with that question we will find out what we can do to reduce their suffering.

Alan Dawrst · Nov 4, 2009

Thanks for the great comments, naitram! I agree with everything you said. Are you interested yourself in encouraging more people (including vegans!) to give thought to wild-animal suffering? I think it's definitely a worthwhile use of time.

amaroque · Nov 4, 2009

The best thing to do is nothing. Strive to live your life in such a way as to minimize your impact on others. There is no need to fix things. Things will fix themselves once we stop making them worse.

Suffering in nature

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities