1
Natural Disvalue
Natural Disvalue: Why Animal Suffering Is Overwhelmingly Prevalent
in Nature
Oscar HortaUniversity of Santiago de Compostela
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!