Cecil the lion captured the world’s attention earlier this year when an American dentist hunted and killed him. People were justifiably outraged at this tragedy — so much so, in fact, that they turned against the entire practice of trophy hunting. Numerous airlines responded by banning the transport of a range of hunting trophies on their flights. In October, people were again infuriated when a German hunter shot a 40- to 60-year-old elephant in Zimbabwe. Although this hunt was legal, unlike Cecil’s, the unnecessary killing of wild animals continues to draw public outcry.

Our outrage and compassion shouldn’t stop there. Human exploitation of animals is horrific and needs to be stamped out, but we should consider taking action against another considerable source of pain and suffering for wild animals — nature itself.

The tragedy of wild animal suffering

Nowadays many of us have little contact with the wilderness, making it easy to view nature with rose-tinted glasses. The images we see of nature feature mostly pristine landscapes or healthy, photogenic wild animals. But this incredible beauty masks huge suffering. Many wild animals endure illness, injury, and starvation without relief. For example, the pain of animals that fall prey to predators like Cecil is especially horrific. Gulls peck out and eat the eyes of baby seals, leaving the blinded pups to die so they can feast on their remains. A shrew will paralyze his prey with venom so he can eat the helpless animal alive, bit by bit, for days.

The natural suffering of wild animals is real and breathtaking in its enormity, but incredibly little is being done to reduce it. Although many organizations work to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity, few focus on the well-being of individual animals. And despite more people taking notice of the torment wild animals endure at the hands of humans who hunt and poach them, little thought has gone into the question of how to help wild animals avoid natural agonies.

Wild animals aren’t that different from the dogs and cats we love, and they deserve the same level of compassion. We must try to help them, if possible, with careful consideration to be sure we don’t cause further harm by disturbing the ecosystems on which we all depend.

What can we do to stop wild animal suffering?

Wild animal welfare is a new and unexplored field, so the most important actions we can take now are a) spreading the idea of helping wild animals, and b) researching possible interventions.

Our first interventions in the wild probably won’t be dramatic. The negative consequences could be huge, so it makes sense to start small and test our ideas in an experimental setting. But our choice is not between inaction and overreaction. There are direct interventions that could be implemented in the medium run without causing excessive disruption to ecosystems.

One option is to give wild animals vaccines. We’ve done this before to manage some diseases that could potentially jump into the human population, such as rabies in populations of wild foxes. Although these interventions were undertaken for their potential benefit to humans, eliminating diseases in wild animals would presumably act as it has in human populations, allowing the animals to live healthier and happier lives. It’s unclear which diseases would be the best targets, but if we began seriously tackling the issue, we’d prioritize diseases in a similar way that we do for humans, based on the number of individuals they affect, the level of suffering they inflict, and our capabilities to treat them.

Another potential way to improve wild animal welfare is to reduce population size. The issues of predation, illness, and starvation can be even worse with overpopulation. In these cases, we might be able to humanely reduce population numbers using contraceptives. In fact, this has already been tried on some wild horses and white-tailed deer. Fertility regulation might be used in conjunction with vaccination to help animals while preventing overpopulation that could affect individuals of different species in the ecosystem.

Of course, this might not work out for various reasons, so we need research exploring whether these are effective, safe means of helping wild animals. As we gain new technologies and improve our understanding of wild animal welfare, some proposed solutions will likely become defunct and new ones will emerge.

Just because it’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good

It might seem like wild animals exist outside the justifiable reach of humanity and that intervening in or "policing" the wild would be arrogant or disrespectful. Wild animal suffering is natural, after all — who are we to meddle?

But this appeal to nature places too much value on preserving natural behaviors and systems for their own sake. It’s a mistake to consider something good simply because it is natural. Plenty of horrible things are natural, like natural disasters and disease, and we’re willing to intervene in situations where we can safely help other humans facing those issues. Wild animals deserve similar consideration.

Yes, the suffering of wild animals is completely natural — as natural as cancer and malaria and other horrors we are trying our best to do away with. It is as natural as smallpox was — before we rightfully wiped it from the Earth.

Moreover, humanity is already having a huge effect on the natural world. So rather than considering whether we should start intervening, the decision in front of us is whether to become more thoughtful and compassionate in our effects on wild animals.

Animals have more intrinsic moral value than "nature" in the abstract

Some adherents to deep ecology and similar philosophies would argue that the non-sentient natural world, including not only the animals but also the sand in deserts and the water in rivers, in and of itself possesses a fundamental right to exist without interference from human civilization and that intervening to help wild animals cannot justify infringing upon that right.

Although the appeal of such a view is understandable, it seems to miss out on a fundamental moral difference between sentient beings, those with the capacity for feelings and subjective experience, and non-sentient entities, such as trees and rocks.

Try a thought experiment. Imagine you are in a burning house and need to get out quickly. You’re a fan of paintings and have several in the building, but there are also several people sleeping in the other side of the house. You have time to either grab the paintings or wake up the people, but not both. Now, would the artistic beauty or other intrinsic values of one of those paintings make you prioritize its intrinsic value over waking up the people in the house to save them from burning alive? I doubt it would, and at the very least, it seems to me we should be extremely reluctant to condone the suffering of sentient beings for the benefit of things like paintings that have no feelings or interests of their own. Similarly, we should not condone the suffering of wild animals for the sake of "nature" in the abstract.

Concerns about potential harm shouldn’t stop us from helping

Some might argue that we shouldn’t intervene in nature because it could cause harmful ripple effects elsewhere in the ecosystem, like through extinction or overpopulation of some species. Some might say humans have a woeful track record of intervention in the wild, so we shouldn’t keep trying. But our track record is largely trying to change nature for human gain rather than this new sort of thoughtful, compassionate intervention, which could bring about more promising results. Nonetheless, these ripple effects are a serious concern, which means we have to proceed with the utmost care.

Indeed, many of the great achievements of humanity came from a willingness to act in a complex system with potentially disastrous consequences. Again, to use human disease as an example, our bodies are extremely complex, but fortunately we were willing to research ways to reduce the illnesses that plague us. That’s led to huge advances in human medicine such as the elimination smallpox. In this example, we were the victims and understood that human disease demanded our attention, despite the complexity of our biology.

Unfortunately, wild animals lack the power in society to speak out and relieve their own suffering like humans, so it’s harder to recognize the urgency of their needs. But we should act on their behalf.

Looking forward

As technology progresses, our capability to safely help wild animals will grow. Even though these discussions and proposals might seem speculative and presumptuous today, we need more people researching these issues so we can get them right down the road. We need to avoid exclusively considering structures like populations, species, ecosystems, and biodiversity. We must remember the other individuals that share this planet with us.

Jacy Reese works at Animal Charity Evaluators, a nonprofit organization that researches and promotes the most effective ways to help animals.