I recently stumbled upon an article written by Heather Browning and Arthur Viet, titled “Positive Wild Animal Welfare“, found in the journal Biology & Philosophy. I love multi-dimensional approaches to trying to understand different fields of study — for example, using philosophy to help us understand, or gain incite into, animal biology and behaviour.
The article explains that when humans think about the lives of wild animals, there are often very different perspectives about the type of life that these animals live: Some envision an idyllic existence of wild animals, untouched by human influence and similar to a world perceived in the Garden of Eden.
Yet, an opposing viewpoint sees the wild as harsh and unforgiving — an environment described by Alfred Tennyson as “red in tooth and claw”. Here, for animals to survive they have a relentless pursuit for sustenance, shelter, and a constant threat of being hunted or dying.
This latter perspective highlights the prevalence of predators and sources of suffering and is often held more dominant in ethical discussions about wild animal welfare. However, it might not paint the complete picture of what life is like for wild animals.
In the article, the authors proposed that the reality of wild animal life most likely sits between the two extremes, possibly leaning more towards a positive existence, more optimistic than many people might think. Most people focus on the suffering that animals endure at the point of death, without giving attention to the array of positive experiences these animals most likely experience throughout their lives.
Why do we think wild animals live such harsh lives?
The popular view of wild animals living such sufferable lives is often influenced by only thinking about their experiences at the time of their deaths. There is not enough attention being paid to all the different experiences endured by wild animals throughout their lives.
“While no-one denies that there are many sources of suffering for wild animals, there are also many sources of pleasure, and we cannot from the outside try to weigh these against one another”.
The short event of death
For instance, while the common occurrence of predation seems agonising, it might not inflict as much suffering as initially thought. In humans, major injuries often do not hurt much at first, due to a spike in adrenaline that blocks the immediate feeling of pain. Studies on animals have suggested that similar chemical pathways may activate in their nervous systems when facing fear or injury. This means that many experiences of predation could be more numb than painful.
Moreover, even if animals do suffer as they die, it shouldn’t define the totality of their lives. Death, particularly in the grip of a predator, lasts a few moments relative to an animal’s lifespan. While this is not an experience anyone wants, it should not define the balance of the animal’s life entirely toward negativity.
Some animals, such as impalas, employ a breeding strategy whereby many offspring are born at one time and do not live for very long, never reaching maturity. For these animals, with short lives and harsh ends, is the balanced skewed to be more likely negative? Possibly in these cases. But it’s important, even in these instances, not to underestimate the potential for positive experiences in the time they have.
The joy of living
When judging the quality of an animal’s life, we must consider the entire spectrum of experiences, not just the negative ones. A life contains a wide range of experiences, we could make a list of all the bad things that wild animals encounter: predation, starvation, thirst, disease, parasites, poor weather, and aggression from members of their own species. Looking at this list might convince us that their lives must be bad. But we can write an alternative list of positive encounters amid the hardships of wildlife: social connections, feeding, mating, comfortable rest, play, exploration, and the enjoyment of sensory experiences.
In cases of human depression, one of the main symptoms is a lack of motivation and resistance to move. For an animal needing to find food and other things necessary to live, not moving about could mean death. So for evolutionary reasons, it would be logical for the baseline experience of animals to be at least slightly positive, as this will encourage movement.
It’s possible that just being alive, perceiving, exploring, and experiencing the world, could itself bring happiness to animals.
A greater look into the lives of wild animals
We will never be able to draw meaningful conclusions about the lives of wild animals and what the positive-negative balance is like for them when we base our views on surface-level observations. Fortunately, the emerging field of wild animal welfare research is conducting great empirical studies which could reveal the intensity and duration of varied experiences, offering insight into their lives.
Understanding the complexities of wild animal lives could pave the way for interventions that reduce sources of suffering, such as disease outbreaks or pest control while preserving positive experiences. Until more information arises, there are great arguments to suspect that many—or perhaps most—wild animals indeed live happy lives.
Robyn Morrison
Source link