This paper will defend this view and examine the extent to which it conflicts with environmentalist positions. To do this, section 1 presents the reasons to claim that suffering and premature death prevail in nature, by explaining that most animals have painful deaths shortly after coming into existence. Section 2 presents some of the ways in which humans are currently intervening that are positive for animals in nature, as well as other more significant forms of interventions that could be carried out. Sections 3 to 5 seek to determine the cases when these intervetions would meet opposition from different views, traditionally identified as environmentalist, on what entities are morally considerable. Section 3 examines this in the case of ecocentrism, and section 4 assesses it in the case of wilderness-focused positions (which we can refer to as “naturocentric”). Section 5 argues that biocentrism must fully support intervention in nature. Then, section 6 discusses whether there may be certain practical issues on which those concerned with wild-animal suffering may have stances similar to those of environmentalists’. Section 7 concludes by pointing out some practical implications the arguments in this paper have.

There is an optimistic view of the wild that is relatively widespread today, according to which animals in the wild lead lives that are on the overall good, as long as we do not interfere. This notion seems to be connected to environmentalist ideas of nature as an idyllic place. There are very strong reasons, however, to conclude that this view is mistaken. Animals in the wild suffer due to many nature causes. These include, among others, malnutrition, hunger and thirst (Zimmerman, 2009; McCue, 2010), diseases, accidents and injuries (Cooper, 1996; Wobeser, 2005), hostile weather conditions (White, 2008), attacks by other animals and parasites and psychological stress (McGowan, 1997; Moberg, 2013 [1985]). In fact, many animals live short lives, enduring significant pain due to these causes (Animal Ethics, 2016a). These animals would benefit greatly if we took action to help them. For this reason, a growing number of theorists have argued in favour of intervening in the wild to reduce the harms suffered by nonhuman animals, whenever that can be done without causing more harm to others (see, for instance, Ng, 1995; Nussbaum, 2006; Tomasik, 2015a [2009]; Horta, 2010; Sözmen, 2013; Faria and Paez, 2015; McMahan, 2015; Faria, 2016; Ryf, 2016; Garmendia and Woodhall, 2016; for early precursors of this idea, see also Gompertz 1997 [1824] and Sapontzis 1987; for defences of moderate forms of intervention, see Naess, 1991; Kirkwood et al., 1994; Palmer, 2010; Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2011; for a review of the literature see Dorado, 2015).

To be sure, some eggs are destroyed before a sentient animal gets out of them. Moreover, some of the animals that come into existence never develop into sentient beings, and some may be only barely sentient when they die. Nevertheless, in many cases, they are certainly sentient and suffer a lot. There are also cases in which animals may survive for some time even if they fail to reproduce. A juvenile fish can live for some weeks or even months before dying before reaching adulthood. Therefore, those animals may well live enough for their lives to include some happiness that can compensate for their suffering. But, in many cases, this does not happen, as they die when they are younger than that. We have reasons, therefore, to conclude that suffering prevails in nature over positive well-being. If, in addition, we consider that premature death is also a disvalue (see, for instance, Nagel, 1970; Bradley, 2009), we will have further reason to think that disvalue prevails over positive value in nature.

The way these animals die is often very painful and sometimes slow. Many of them starve. Others die of cold or dehydration. Others are eaten alive (sometimes by parasites who may take a long time to do it). They thus suffer a great deal. In contrast, because the lives of all these animals are so short, they include very few opportunities for well-being. In fact, many of them experience little more than the pain of their deaths. Others can have some opportunities for enjoyment, but they are few and brief ones in comparison to the large amounts of suffering they endure while they live. This means that the proportion of positive well-being and suffering in their lives is radically asymmetric: these animals suffer a lot but experience little positive well-being. In other words, their lives include much more suffering than happiness (Ng, 1995; Tomasik, 2015 [2009]; Faria and Paez, 2015).

Most adult animals living in the wild have to face some of the sources of harm mentioned at the beginning of this paper, such as hunger, diseases, weather conditions, attacks, and distress. However, it appears that the main reason why suffering is widespread in the wild is that the majority of young animals have to endure these sources of harm without enjoying positive things enough to compensate for them. This is related to the fact that most animals have painful early deaths. To understand this, we must consider what reproductive strategies prevail in nature. Some animals have just one offspring, who is taken care of by his or her parents and has reasonable chances of surviving. But these animals are a tiny minority. Most nonhuman animals have evolved to have huge clutches or litters. In each generation, the number of offspring that come into existence can be several orders of magnitude larger than the number of adult individuals in the previous generation. For instance, animals such as frogs and many invertebrates can lay thousands of eggs, and others such as fish can lay millions of them (Sagoff, 1984; Stearns, 1992; 2000; Ng, 1995; Cappuccino and Price, 1995). Most of them, however, die shortly after coming into existence. On average, for stable populations, only one animal per parent survives.

Other forms of intervention that would have a much more significant impact on reducing the harms suffered by animals in the wild could be also implemented. In particular, environmental management and engineering programmes could be carried out not with the aim of furthering human interests or environmentalist aims, but of improving the situation of animals. To do this successfully, we would need more research, in order to apply the knowledge that we already have about how ecosystems work to achieve this new aim. A whole new field of study has been proposed for this. It has been named “(animal) welfare biology,” described as the study of the positive and negative well-being of living sentient beings in consideration of their interactions with each other and their environment (Ng, 1995). There is, however, a major obstacle to this field’s development and to the carrying out of interventions to aid nonhuman animals. It has to do not with epistemological or technical difficulties, but with the possibility that our moral views might conflict with the idea of aiding animals in nature. We will see this problem next.

On a wider scale, wild-animal vaccination and feeding programmes are currently carried out in different countries (see, for instance, Rupprecht et al., 2003; Buddle et al., 2011; Reuters, 2002; Nepal Mountain News, 2011). These programmes have been implemented mainly to benefit humans (for instance, to prevent wild animals from passing certain diseases onto humans or from dying off in certain areas where they are a tourist attraction, such as some national parks). Still, the fact that they have been carried out successfully shows that it is perfectly feasible to implement them for the sake of nonhuman animals themselves.

There are different ways in which we can intervene to have a positive impact for animals in the wild. In fact, many of these interventions are being currently carried out in different places and circumstances. For example, the rescue of wild animals from ponds or frozen lakes is one such intervention that appears in the media every now and then. Cases of stranded marine animals or animals victim of natural disasters being helped are common, too. In many different places, there are also rescue centres for orphaned, sick, or injured wild animals (for detailed reports of this, see Animal Ethics, 2016b).

3. Ecocentrism and intervention to aid animals

While there are sound arguments in favour of the conclusions reached above, these conclusions will be quite counterintuitive to many people. This will be so in the case of those holding blatant anthropocentric[1] speciesist views, according to which we have no reason to be concerned with what happens to nonhuman animals. But this paper is going to focus in particular in what environmentalist views have to say on this matter. It seems at first sight that intervention to aid animals in nature is at odds with what these views prescribe. Nevertheless, while this is so to some extent, it is less so than it might seem. We will see this in the case of some of the most representative positions traditionally identified as environmentalist.

Let us consider first what holistic views maintain (Leopold, 1949; Callicott, 1989). They may oppose intervention for the sake of nonhuman animals by arguing that wholes such as ecosystems or species, rather that individuals, are the locations of value we should care about.[2] In particular, ecocentric holists would claim that animal suffering and premature death are just consequences of many ecological interactions, which are what actually matters. This is because, according to ecocentrism, the entities that are morally considerable are entities such as ecosystems, biocenoses, or ecosystemic relations, not individual entities. Accepting this view would lead us to conclude that the harms suffered by nonhuman animals are either not disvalues at all or disvalues that are to be considered necessary results of more important processes. Therefore, we should not be concerned with them.

This view can be opposed by challenging the conception of value on which it is based. But there are also several reasons why, even if we accepted an ecocentric view, we may be less reluctant to accept intervention for the sake of animals than we may initially think. To start with, it is worth pointing out that ecocentrists see nothing wrong with intervention in nature as such. In fact, they often support it, though not to aid animals, but in order to conserve, restore, or recreate a certain ecosystem. So, it is not that those defending this view think that nature is sacrosanct and that we cannot interfere with it. It is just that they want nature to be in certain ways, rather than in others. However, even if we accept that ecosystems are valuable, if the harms suffered by nonhuman animals matter too, then that should give us at least pro tanto reasons to intervene (Cunha, 2015). Intervention would be problematic only when it transformed significantly the ecosystems where it took place. In addition, it can also be argued that, if what matters is the existence of ecosystems as such, then transforming a previously existing ecosystem into a new one with less animal suffering should not be really problematic. After all, a new ecosystem would be present afterwards (Johnson, 1981, p. 271).

This is a characterization of the implications that ecocentrism (as defined above) has. However, it is not the way in which those who typically claim to be ecocentrists think. Rather, those who identify with this view usually value present ecosystems, rather than future or past ones. They do not usually regret that old ecosystems previously existing on Earth were eventually substituted by current ones, and are not thrilled by the prospect of present ecosystems being substituted by new ones. Still, it is also the case that most of those holding this view also reject the claim that only ecosystems are valuable. They typically accept that the positive well-being and negative well-being of humans are also valuable and disvaluable (see Callicott, 1990, p. 103; 2000, p. 211; Varner, 1991). If this is so, then, lest they hold a speciesist position, they would have to accept a similar stance in the case of nonhuman animals.

To be sure, supporters of ecocentrism can acknowledge this and yet claim that ecosystems have a special value that outweighs the importance of the interests of animals. But note that this view would be contingent on the weight those interests have. If, aggregated together, those interests were significant enough, they could outweigh the holistic value of the ecosystems they live in. Given the extent of the disvalue suffered by nonhuman animals in the wild, we may have reasons to conclude that this is actually so in the wild. If this is correct, then even defenders of this ecocentric view would be forced to accept intervention, too. The only way to avoid this would be to claim that ecosystemic relations possess a value that trumps any disvalue. This position, however, seems quite hard to accept. It is certainly not the one held by defenders of this view when significant human interests are at stake, and very few other people will accept it in that case, either (on this, see again Varner, 1991; for an exception, see Linkola, 2009). Again, if this is so, it seems speciesist to hold a different view when equally strong or actually stronger interests of other animals are at stake.

Finally, it is important to note that supporters of ecocentrism are typically concerned not with all ecosystems, but only with those that exist in areas where human presence is not too significant, and that have not been too radically transformed in ways that bear little resemblance to other naturally existing ecosystems. This excludes at least urban, industrial, suburban, and intense-agriculture areas, and maybe also those used for extensive agriculture, as well as those radically transformed for recreation or other purposes. All versions of ecocentrism may accept intervention in these places. This leaves significant room for intervention, as together these places cover a very significant area, where an immense number of animals live.