|
While I can see where you come from, may I suggest that you consider what you mean by "suffering" of wild animals? Natural systems, left to themselves, will always involve what you call "suffering". However, some of what you include in that term is inappropriate, as is the term "suffering" itself which implies that the animals subjected to it have insight in what is happening to them and can appreciate it with insight. However, such self-reflection and awareness may be uniquely human. If we consider physical discomfort or pain, however, that is something humans share with animals - the pain system at least in vertebrates is shared by all since unlike what many humans think, pain is not a negative sensation, it is a powerful trigger for the recruitment of survival mechanisms - in particular, activation of the autonomic sympathetic nervous system to take the inflicted individual away from the painful stimulus, and marshall the defense systems of the body; and once away, the need for healing and marshalling the body's resources for this purpose. One such system, for instance, is the release of endorphins in the brain that moderate the transmission of pain-evoked activity so that the animal feels the pain less (something also described by humans, the classical example being that of the explorer Stanley when attacked by a lion and when thinking he was going to die - he described how the pain went and was replaced by feeling of acceptance; before nature documentaries were sanitised and when they still included footage of kills, a similar effect was often seen in the victim when it no longer could get away, a sudden stop of activity and what seemed a death free from the powerful stimulus of pain). As for death of numerous offspring, this is an evolutionary strategy that is well understood. To increase the change of offspring surviving, you can either produce a lot of them, offspring that matures rapidly and gets little parental investment individually, or you can produce only one or a few at the time but then invest a lot in them. Rats do the first, humans, apes and monkeys and most large animals the latter, and in this, there seem to be certain rules (do a search for K and R ratios of offspring). There is nothing that you can do about that kind of "natural" suffering; moreover, if all a rat's offspring survived then in very little time there would be no room for any other living thing, including more rats). As for disease, that also is part of nature. Healthy well-fed animals not subject to extreme stress will not easily become sick, but old and stressed or malnourished ones will - and before the advent of modern medicine, this was true of humans in Western society as well ( read Sapolski for interesting material on stress and health in social primates).
That said, humans can cause damage to wild animals - by putting them under pressure through loss of habitat, uncontrolled killing (as opposed to controlled hunting), and by bringing diseases of ourselves and of our domestic species into wild populations (polio and influenza to wild apes, canine distemper to wild dogs, rinderpest (now eradicated thru vaccination, hip hip hooray!!! to wild ungulates) and food deprivation. It is here where you and all of us can help, by supporting conservation, thinking about our own consumprtion patterns, support of scientific research into wildlife, agriculture and livestock farming, etc. That may include rethinking veganism, BTW. Science has shown that mixed farming (and also, not organic farming!) can feed the most for the least amount of land.... and it also includes accepting that genetically modified foods are not a work of the devil but can help to feed more for less, thus saving a bit of the world for nonhumans.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
