Reducing Wild Animal Suffering

Wild animals matter too. The welfare of wild animals is often overlooked in calculations about the relative effectiveness of interventions to reduce suffering. The number of wild animals far exceeds the number of humans, farmed animals, and companion animals. And unfortunately, many wild animals (possibly the vast majority) live very short lives and experience painful deaths. Richard Dawkins is one of many who have remarked on the cruelty of nature: “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.”1

Historically, ecologists have used the concepts of “K-selection” and “r-selection” to describe two different types of evolutionary “strategies”. In K-selected species, parents invest many resources in raising a few young. In r-selected species, parents have many young and invest few resources in each. Many of the more charismatic species of wild animals, like elephants and apes, are K-selected; they raise their young carefully and live relatively long lives. The charisma of these species may contribute to the common perception that life in the wild is not so bad. However, r-selected species are extremely common in nature and their populations are usually high, at least at times of year when their young have recently been born. The numbers in the following table suggest that much of the pleasure and pain in the world is experienced neither by humans nor domesticated animals, but by animals in the wild.

Global Population Humans2 7.3 x 109 Animals in labs (vertebrates)3, 4 about 108 Farmed Animals5 3.3 x 1010 Wild Animals (vertebrates)6 at least 1013 Wild Animals (total)7 about 1019 Companion Animals8 about 109 All Animals9 about 1019

We currently do not recommend many charities who reduce wild animal suffering. That’s not because we don’t prioritize the welfare of wild animals; it’s simply because not many charities are working in this area yet. There are, however, several strategies that animal advocates are beginning to promote. First, some animal advocates work to spread concern for wild animals among the public, the advocacy community, and the academic community. Second, some advocates work to reduce or end human activities that cause wild animal suffering. Third, there are advocates who conduct research on potentially effective interventions to reduce wild animal suffering.

Promoting concern for wild animals now seems critical, especially because such concern is not widespread. Many people believe that human concern for non-human animals should be restricted to those animals whose suffering is directly caused by humans. Promoting concern for wild animals can help ensure that future generations—who may have more wealth, technology, and knowledge than we have now—will act rationally and humanely to reduce suffering in nature. Animal ethicist Oscar Horta explains: “Our job now is to prepare the grounds for forthcoming generations to take action where we may be currently unable to act.”

Some advocates are already working to end human activities that contribute to suffering in nature. This seems more tractable than promoting new activities to reduce wild animal suffering, since many people are opposed to “intervening” in nature.

We believe that research may be an especially promising way to help wild animals, since it can inform decisions about which interventions to pursue. Wild animal suffering has been a neglected issue, and we have more questions about it than answers. What types of animals suffer most? Which ecosystems have the most suffering? How do various human interventions impact suffering? Researching these questions could have a huge impact by guiding the animal advocacy movement.

Efforts to reduce wild animal suffering may be riskier than other causes because of the high uncertainty involved, but the potential positive impact is high, as well. We hope to see more animal advocates working to reduce wild animal suffering in the near future.10