Wild Animal Suffering

As animal rights activists, we should be focusing on helping all animals, not just the ones that are abused by humans.

No doubt, animals in the wild do experience their share of suffering, but in order for it to be considered as a cause of concern for animal rights activists in this point in time, it has to be demonstrated to be significant enough to dedicate the respective amount of resources towards it, as well as showing a practical and reasonable means of solving.

Scope of wild animal suffering

Animals on factory farms suffer immensely, being forced into cramped cages, mutilated, artificially inseminated, having their babies stolen, suffer grotesque infections, and endure immense psychological torture on top of that. The suffering felt by the animals on these farms is 100% certain, absolute, and has various practical means of being solved (Veganism, animal welfare laws, activism). Wild animals often suffer too; Being eaten alive by predators, dealing with climate, battling parasites and disease, starving to death, or even dying of dehydration.

The questions are: Are there more animals suffering than not in the wild compared to animals, is there enough suffering to warrant doing something, and what can be done about it?

A common argument in favor of wild animal suffering being a significant problem is that there are far, far more animals in the wild than there are on factory farms and animal agriculture. Even if the suffering felt by individual wild animals is on average less than that of animals on factory farms, the total aggregate suffering is much higher.

Basic ecology tells us that in any given ecosystem, prey are much more common than their predators (as explained by the second law of thermodynamics), and one zebra, bison, deer, etc. can often be enough to feed multiple lions, bears, wolves, etc. Prey are also not defenseless and vulnerable. They evolved to run at great speeds (gazelles, pronghorn), have considerable strength and size (elephants, giraffes), and have various defense mechanisms for fighting back (skunks with their repellent scent, African buffalo with their horns, zebra with their spade-shaped teeth), and on top of that, predators aren't always successful in their hunts; In fact, even some the most successful predators have a less than 50% success rate, with the average being somewhere around 10%, and sometimes go days without eating, which is something they've adapted to. It isn't easy as you think for animals to take down prey, especially ones that are significantly faster or larger than them. It takes a whole pride of lions to take down an elephant, with extreme coordination and teamwork, and even smaller prey can be challenging.

The view that Wild Animal Suffering is just as bad if not even moreso than Farm Animal suffering is a very tall claim to make, and currently, one that lacks any empirical evidence. Yes, there are far more animals living in the wild than on factory farms (even excluding invertebrates), but that does not mean the total aggregate suffering felt by them exceeds or necessarily even comes close to the suffering on factory farms. In the wild, animals aren't locked up in cages and are free to decide where they live and who to mate with, and aren't in a constant state of suffering and fear. Just because there may be a risk of being killed and eaten doesn't mean such a thing is constantly preoccupying their minds. Think of human lives: Many of us drive metal boxes that, if operated incorrectly, can cause permanent injury or even death for numerous individuals, we play sports that can cause paralysis, ride rollercoasters or do something more extreme like rock-climbing or handgliding. When we do these things, of course we're well aware of the risks. But does this mean we are in a constant state of fear and paranoia in our day-to-day lives, even when there are dangers all around us we barely even notice?

One of the most underestimated problems animals on factory farms face is boredom. Being cramped in cages all day for months leaves nothing to do, and they tend to go stir crazy as a result(which is the main reason why Chickens are debeaked). Boredom evolved as a way to motivate us to do something (and since humans in developed countries don't need to worry about dealing with the elements or getting their next meal, it's an incredibly common problem), and animals in the wild are always free to do things, and thus are constantly keeping busy. They're either resting, hunting, keeping an eye out for predators, foraging, caring for family and friends, raising offspring, eating, sleeping, building or finding shelter, migrating and traveling, playing, searching for food and water, finding mates, mating, and a million other things that can be listed. Working hard all the time may be arduous, but that does not automatically mean suffering. When the work is rewarding and engaging, it produces positive feelings for the animals, similar to how humans feel good when we accomplish something useful.

All in all, they're adapted to their environments, and don't usually stray too far from them. Evolution has been pretty effective in sculpting species that are fit to thrive in their environments; Given that 99% of species that have ever lived are now extinct for one reason or another (OK maybe evolution is a little less than effective), the ones that are around now and have been alive for a while give us good reason to believe they've been doing very well for themselves. Humans have a hard time living in cold and dry climates because we didn't evolve to live in them, which is why we need shelter and clothing in order to be able to live in these environments. Animals that have evolved to live in cold climates, such as polar bears and snow leopards can deal with it much better than ones that have lived in hot climates, such as coyotes and camals.

Some may point to animals like tadpoles and other non-mammals being killed in mass quantities, but these examples tend to be on the lower end of sentience, meaning their deaths don't automatically add up to the high levels of suffering experienced by animals on factory farms. It's sort of like how carnists will all of a sudden pretend to care about the animals killed in crop harvesting, convienently ignoring that it's mainly killing animals of little sentience (insects) and that far more animals are killed in the harvesting of crops for livestock, as well as the clearing of land for the farms and grazing.

Wild Animal Happiness

It isn't fair or particularly honest to only focus on the suffering and completely ignore the fact that wild animals experience happiness too. Animals are not automated robots that act only on instinct; In the case of vertebrates, all have the neurological pathways necessary for emotion and physical perception, meaning they, similar to humans, experience negative and positive things that affect their mental and physical well-being, ranging from sadness, pain, trauma, and suffering, to happiness, comfort, love, and pleasure. They enjoy eating food, sex, socializing, and relaxing. If humans are able to enjoy these types of things, why can't wild animals? This part of our evolution is homologous, and there is no reason to think this is only present in humans.

Sure, in the time you read this sentence, animals are being chased by predators, getting eaten alive, or dying of starvation. But, at the same time, animals are having sex, eating their favorite foods, spending time with their friends and families whom they love, and relaxing in the shade or sun.

This is one of the reasons why the idea that destroying habitat is a net positive, or that we should eliminate all life, is both morally and empirically suspect. If we're going to be eliminating life to make sure they don't face suffering, we are also going to be ensuring that they don't enjoy happiness. They on average enjoy their lives, and their lives are important to them. While the idea might be hard to mentally articulate (even amongst some Vegans), animals aren't a hivemind, they are individuals with preferences, likes, dislikes, goals, and a desire to live as much as possible. And given how, as established earlier, most vertebrates are not killed by wild animals due to there being relatively few predators, and their success rates being fairly low, it's a fair conclusion that there are more animals that are enjoying life in nature than suffering (until of course you introduce ignorant and destructive human beings who poach, increase the climate, pollute the water and air, etc., for which, a better and easier solution is to stop doing all of these things than anything else).

As mentioned earlier, there are far more animals in the wild than on factory farms. While we can imagine the idea that the aggregate suffering of wild animals is greater than that of animals on factory farms (which is an empirical claim that needs to be substantiated), a lot, if not most of this suffering is offset by the happiness felt by wild animals.

While there is certainly validity to wanting to reduce animal suffering as much as possible, the best way to do that is not continued habitat destruction (which, some carnists argue, is why cutting down forests for pasture and crops is a net-positive), or killing all life. Again, as of right now there aren't any clear paths towards solving it, and it isn't even necessarily as pressing as the suffering felt by animals in agriculture, for which there ARE clear paths towards solving.

Climate Change

Probably the most valid concern for wild animal suffering, is the effects that climate change will have on them. While of course the vast majority of the damage from climate change will be on humans (particularly those in the Global South), the increased heat will not bode well for most wild animals, especially mammals. The heat that's coming will, if not kill them, cause them great amounts of harm and suffering. See, the Earth's climate is always changing, but this is over the course of thousands, sometimes millions of years. This gradualness gives animals the opportunity to adapt to their environments.

But due to the gluttony and apathy of humankind, we are accelerating this rate of warmth, and warming that would normally take thousands of years has been done in just a few centuries, with a bulk of that happening in the past couple decades, which does not give animals enough time to evolve and adapt to their environments. It's unlikely to kill all life on Earth (life always finds a way), but the Earth is going to get so hot that many animals will die of heatstroke.

The thing is, this isn't a wild-animal-only problem, this is a problem that will affect all life on Earth, especially humans. Solving this is keeping in mind the fact that we're saving pretty much all life on Earth. It won't necessarily become uninhabitable, but life, both human and animal, will suffer.

What can be done as of right now?

While solving wild animal suffering as a whole is not a practical or reasonable goal at this point in time, there are a few things we can do in the meantime to reduce their suffering as much as we can.

For one, getting rid of certain parasites, such as mosquitoes, ticks, fleas, and various parastic worms, would be a huge net positive, not just for humans, but for animals. These parasites are not ecologically significant, they only just cause misery and discomfort, and this is something we can easily do to reduce suffering, and it would also help humans and our animal companions.

And of course, doing everything we can to reduce climate change would be a big help, as discussed earlier. Along with going vegan, there are tons of things we can do individually to reduce our impact on the climate, which will not only help out humans, but reduce the effects it will have on virtually all animals.