Summary
This article is behind a paywall. It has been included in the database and summarized below solely based on the content of the abstract.
Many philosophers believe that we have a general obligation to reduce wild animal suffering (WAS): animals suffer in the wild, suffering is bad, and morality tells us to reduce what is bad. However, the authors argue that we don’t know enough about the nature of ecosystems and how animal suffering arises to believe that efforts to reduce WAS would be successful. The authors consider two strategies based on gene editing to reduce WAS and raise concerns about them. The authors conclude by proposing that we need more knowledge of ecosystems and animals’ well-being to justify interventions to prevent WAS.
Abstract cannot be posted