Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering below:

Wild animal suffering - Wikipedia

Suffering of wild animals due to natural processes

Wild animal suffering is suffering experienced by non-human animals living in the wild, outside of direct human control, due to natural processes. Its sources include disease, injury, parasitism, starvation, malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, killings by other animals, and psychological stress.^[1][2] An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution,^[3] as well as the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies, which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.^[1][4][5] Some estimates suggest that the total population of wild animals, excluding nematodes but including arthropods, may be vastly greater than the number of animals killed by humans each year. This figure is estimated to be between 10¹⁸ and 10²¹ individuals.^[6]

The topic has historically been discussed in the context of the philosophy of religion as an instance of the problem of evil.^[7] More recently, starting in the 19th century, a number of writers have considered the subject from a secular standpoint as a general moral issue, that humans might be able to help prevent.^[8] There is considerable disagreement around taking such action, as many believe that human interventions in nature should not take place because of practicality,^[9] valuing ecological preservation over the well-being and interests of individual animals,^[10] considering any obligation to reduce wild animal suffering implied by animal rights to be absurd,^[11] or viewing nature as an idyllic place where happiness is widespread.^[4] Some argue that such interventions would be an example of human hubris, or playing God, and use examples of how human interventions, for other reasons, have unintentionally caused harm.^[12] Others, including animal rights writers, have defended variants of a laissez-faire position, which argues that humans should not harm wild animals but that humans should not intervene to reduce natural harms that they experience.^[13][14]

Advocates of such interventions argue that animal rights and welfare positions imply an obligation to help animals suffering in the wild due to natural processes. Some assert that refusing to help animals in situations where humans would consider it wrong not to help humans is an example of speciesism.^[2] Others argue that humans intervene in nature constantly—sometimes in very substantial ways—for their own interests and to further environmentalist goals.^[15] Human responsibility for enhancing existing natural harms has also been cited as a reason for intervention.^[16] Some advocates argue that humans already successfully help animals in the wild, such as vaccinating and healing injured and sick animals, rescuing animals in fires and other natural disasters, feeding hungry animals, providing thirsty animals with water, and caring for orphaned animals.^[17] They also assert that although wide-scale interventions may not be possible with our current level of understanding, they could become feasible in the future with improved knowledge and technologies.^[18][19] For these reasons, they argue it is important to raise awareness about the issue of wild animal suffering, spread the idea that humans should help animals suffering in these situations, and encourage research into effective measures, which can be taken in the future to reduce the suffering of these individuals, without causing greater harms.^[4][15]

Animals in the wild may suffer from diseases which circulate similarly to human colds and flus, as well as epizootics, which are analogous to human epidemics; epizootics are relatively understudied in the scientific literature.^[20] Some well-studied examples include chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, white-nose syndrome in bats, devil facial tumour disease in Tasmanian devils and Newcastle disease in birds.^[20] Examples of other diseases include myxomatosis and viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits,^[21] ringworm and cutaneous fibroma in deer,^[22] and chytridiomycosis in amphibians.^[23] Diseases, combined with parasitism, "may induce listlessness, shivering, ulcers, pneumonia, starvation, violent behavior, or other gruesome symptoms over the course of days or weeks leading up to death."^[1]

Poor health may dispose wild animals to increased risk of infection, which in turn reduces the health of the animal, further increasing the risk of infection.^[24] The terminal investment hypothesis holds that infection can lead some animals to focus their limited remaining resources on increasing the number of offspring they produce.^[25]

Wild animals can experience injury from a variety of causes such as predation; intraspecific competition; accidents, which can cause fractures, crushing injuries, eye injuries and wing tears; self-amputation; molting, a common source of injury for arthropods; extreme weather conditions, such as storms, extreme heat or cold weather; and natural disasters. Such injuries may be extremely painful, which can lead to behaviors which further negatively affect the well-being of the injured animal. Injuries can also make animals susceptible to diseases and other injuries, as well as parasitic infections. Additionally, the affected animal may find it harder to eat and drink and struggle to escape from predators and attacks from other members of their species.^[26]

Many wild animals, particularly larger ones, have been found to be infected with at least one parasite. Parasites can negatively affect the well-being of their hosts by redirecting their host's resources to themselves, destroying their host's tissue and increasing their host's susceptibility to predation.^[20] As a result, parasites may reduce the movement, reproduction and survival of their hosts.^[27] Parasites can alter the phenotype of their hosts; limb malformations in amphibians caused by Ribeiroia ondatrae, is one example.^[28] Some parasites have the capacity to manipulate the cognitive function of their hosts, such as worms which make crickets kill themselves by directing them to drown themselves in water for the purpose of reproduction in an aquatic environment, as well as caterpillars using dopamine containing secretions that manipulate ants to act as bodyguards for protecting the caterpillar from parasites.^[29] It is rare that parasites directly cause the death of their host, rather, they may increase the chances of their host's death by other means;^[20] one meta-study found that mortality was 2.65 times higher in animals affected by parasites, than those that weren't.^[30]

Unlike parasites, parasitoids—which include species of worms, wasps, beetles and flies—kill their hosts, who are generally other invertebrates.^[31] Parasitoids specialize in attacking one particular species. Different methods are used by parasitoids to infect their hosts: laying their eggs on plants which are frequently visited by their host, laying their eggs on or close to the host's eggs or young and stinging adult hosts so that they are paralyzed, then laying their eggs near or on them.^[31] The larvae of parasitoids grow by feeding on the internal organs and bodily fluids of their hosts,^[32] which eventually leads to the death of their host when their organs have ceased to function, or they have lost all of their bodily fluids.^[31] Superparasitism is a phenomenon where multiple different parasitoid species simultaneously infect the same host.^[33] Parasitoid wasps have been described as having the largest number of species of any other animal species.^[34]

Starvation and malnutrition particularly affect young, old, sick and weak animals, and can be caused by injury, disease, poor teeth and environmental conditions, with winter being particularly associated with an increased risk.^[35] Food availability limits the size of wild animal populations, meaning that a huge number of individuals die as a result of starvation; such deaths are described as prolonged and marked by extreme distress as the animal's bodily functions shut down.^[36]: 67 Within days of hatching, fish larvae may experience hydrodynamic starvation, whereby the motion of fluids in their environment limits their ability to feed; this can lead to mortality of greater than 99%.^[37]

Dehydration is associated with high mortality in wild animals. Drought can cause many animals in larger populations to die of thirst. Thirst can also expose animals to an increased risk of being preyed upon; they may remain hidden in safe spaces to avoid this. However, their need for water may eventually force them to leave these spaces; being in a weakened state, this makes them easier targets for predatory animals. Animals who remain hidden cannot move due to dehydration and may end up dying of thirst. When dehydration is combined with starvation, the process of dehydration can be accelerated.^[38] Diseases, such as chytridiomycosis, can also increase the risk of dehydration.^[39]

Weather has a strong influence on the health and survival of wild animals. Weather phenomena such as heavy snow, flooding and droughts can directly harm animals^[41] and indirectly harm them by increasing the risks of other forms of suffering, such as starvation and disease.^[41] Extreme weather can cause the deaths of animals by destroying their habitats and directly killing animals;^[42] hailstorms are known to kill thousands of birds.^[43][44] Certain weather conditions may maintain large numbers of individuals over many generations; such conditions, while conducive to survival, may still cause suffering for animals. Humidity or lack thereof can be beneficial or harmful depending on an individual animals' needs.^[41]

Deaths of large numbers of animals—particularly cold-blooded ones such as amphibians, reptiles, fishes and invertebrates—can take place as a result of temperature fluctuations, with young animals being particularly susceptible. Temperature may not be a problem for parts of the year, but can be a problem in especially hot summers or cold winters.^[41] Extreme heat and lack of rainfall are also associated with suffering and increased mortality by increasing susceptibility to disease and causing vegetation that insects and other animals rely upon to dry out; this drying out can also make animals who rely on plants as hiding places more susceptible to predation. Amphibians who rely on moisture to breathe and stay cool may die when water sources dry up.^[45] Hot temperatures can cause fish to die by making it hard for them to breathe.^[46] Climate change and associated warming and drying is making certain habitats intolerable for some animals through heat stress and reducing available water sources.^[47] Mass mortality is particularly linked with winter weather due to low temperatures, lack of food and bodies of water where animals live, such as frogs, freezing over;^[48] a study on cottontail rabbits indicates that only 32% of them survive the winter.^[40] Fluctuating environmental conditions in the winter months is also associated with increased mortality.^[49]

Natural disasters such as fires, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, storms, and floods cause extensive immediate and long-term harm to wild animals. These events result in death, injury, illness, and malnutrition, and can also contaminate food and water sources, leading to poisoning.^[50][51] Such disasters may alter the physical environment in ways that are harmful to individual animals; for example, fires and large volcanic eruptions can influence weather patterns, while marine animals can be affected by changes in water temperature and salinity.^[50] Wildfires in particular present significant challenges by causing direct mortality, injury, and displacement of animals, as well as disrupting habitats and reducing food availability. The severity and frequency of fires affect species differently depending on factors such as mobility, reproductive cycles, and ecological roles, with some populations experiencing long-term declines as a consequence.^[52]

Predation has been described as the act of one animal capturing and killing another animal to consume part or all of their body.^[53] Jeff McMahan, a moral philosopher, asserts: "Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous."^[54] Preyed upon animals die in a variety of different ways, with the time taking for them to die, which can be lengthy, depending on the method that the predatory animal uses to kill them; some animals are swallowed and digested while still being alive.^[55] Other preyed upon animals are paralysed with venom before being eaten; venom can also be used to start digesting the animal.^[56]

Animals may be killed by members of their own species due to territorial disputes, competition for mates and social status, as well as cannibalism, infanticide, and siblicide.^[57]

It has been argued that animals in the wild do not appear to be happier than domestic animals, based on findings that these individuals have greater levels of cortisol and elevated stress responses relative to domestic animals; additionally, unlike domestic animals, wild animals do not have their needs provided for them by human caretakers.^[58] Sources of stress for these individuals include illness and infection, predation avoidance, nutritional stress and social interactions; these stressors can begin before birth and continue as the individual develops.^[59]

A framework known as the ecology of fear conceptualises the psychological impact that the fear of predatory animals can have on the individuals that they predate, such as altering their behavior and reducing their survival chances.^[60][61] Fear-inducing interactions with predators may cause lasting effects on behavior and PTSD-like changes in the brains of animals in the wild.^[62] These interactions can also cause a spike in stress hormones, such as cortisol, which can increase the risk of both the individual's death and their offspring.^[63]

The number of individual animals in the wild is relatively unexplored in the scientific literature and estimates vary considerably.^[64] An analysis, undertaken in 2018, estimates (not including wild mammals) that there are 10¹⁵ fish, 10¹¹ wild birds, 10¹⁸ terrestrial arthropods and 10²⁰ marine arthropods, 10¹⁸ annelids, 10¹⁸ molluscs and 10¹⁶ cnidarians, for a total of 10²¹ wild animals.^[65] It has been estimated that there are 2.25 times more wild mammals than wild birds in Britain, but the authors of this estimate assert that this calculation would likely be a severe underestimate when applied to the number of individual wild mammals in other continents.^[66] A 2022 study estimated that there are 20 quadrillion individual ants across the world.^[67]

Based on some of these estimates, it has been argued that the number of individual wild animals in existence is considerably higher, by an order of magnitude, than the number of animals humans kill for food each year,^[6] with individuals in the wild making up over 99% of all sentient beings in existence.^[68]

In his autobiography, the naturalist and biologist Charles Darwin acknowledged that the existence of extensive suffering in nature was fully compatible with the workings of natural selection, yet maintained that pleasure was the main driver of fitness-increasing behavior in organisms.^[69] Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins challenges Darwin's claim in his book River Out of Eden, wherein he argues that wild animal suffering must be extensive due to the interplay of the following evolutionary mechanisms:^[3]

• Selfish genes – genes are wholly indifferent to the well-being of individual organisms as long as DNA is passed on.
• The struggle for existence – competition over limited resources results in the majority of organisms dying before passing on their genes.
• Malthusian checks – even bountiful periods within a given ecosystem eventually lead to overpopulation and subsequent population crashes.

From this, Dawkins concludes that the natural world must necessarily contain enormous amounts of animal suffering as an inevitable consequence of Darwinian evolution.^[3] To illustrate this, he writes:^[70]

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

Some writers argue that the prevalence of r-selected animals in the wild—who produce large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care, and of which only a small number, in a stable population, will survive to adulthood—indicates that the average life of these individuals is likely to be very short and end in a painful death.^[4][5] The pathologist Keith Simpson describes this as follows:^[71]

In the wild, plagues of excess population are a rarity. The seas are not crowded with sunfish; the ponds are not brimming with toads; elephants do not stand shoulder to shoulder over the land. With few exceptions, animal populations are remarkably stable. On average, of each pair's offspring, only sufficient survive to replace the parents when they die. Surplus young die, and birth rates are balanced by death rates. In the case of spawners and egg layers, some young are killed before hatching. Almost half of all blackbird eggs are taken by jays, but even so, each pair usually manages to fledge about four young. By the end of summer, however, an average of under two are still alive. Since one parent will probably die or be killed during the winter, only one of the young will survive to breed the following summer. The high mortality rate among young animals is an inevitable consequence of high fecundity. Of the millions of fry produced by a pair of sunfish, only one or two escape starvation, disease or predators. Half the young of house mice living on the Welsh island of Skokholm are lost before weaning. Even in large mammals, the lives of the young can be pathetically brief and the killing wholesale. During the calving season, many young wildebeeste, still wet, feeble and bewildered, are seized and torn apart by jackals, hyenas and lions within minutes of emerging from their mothers' bellies. Three out of every four die violently within six months.

According to this view, the lives of the majority of animals in the wild likely contain more suffering than happiness, since a painful death would outweigh any short-lived moments of happiness experienced in their short lives.^[4][72][73] Welfare economist Yew-Kwang Ng argues that evolutionary dynamics can lead to welfare outcomes that are worse than necessary for a given population equilibrium.^[72] A 2019 follow-up paper, by Ng and Zach Groff, challenges the conclusions of Ng's original paper, asserting that subsequent analysis reveals an error in Ng's model, resulting in ambiguity over whether there is more suffering than enjoyment in nature; the paper concludes that the rate of failure to reproduce can either enhance or detract from average welfare depending on additional characteristics of a species and implies that for organisms with more intense conscious experiences, the balance between enjoyment and suffering may tend more towards suffering.^[74]

2nd-century church fathers, particularly Irenaeus of Lyons and Theophilus of Antioch, hold that animals are originally created as peaceful vegetarians, only becoming carnivorous as a result of human sin and the Fall. They believe that in the future, God restores this harmony, returning animals to their original diet. Irenaeus interprets Isaiah's prophecies as literal, expecting lions to become herbivores once more in the restored creation. Theophilus echoes this view, stating that no animals are created evil or violent, but that sin corrupts their nature.^[75]

The idea that suffering is common in nature has been observed by several writers historically who engaged with the problem of evil. In his notebooks (written between 1487 and 1505), Italian polymath Leonardo da Vinci describes the suffering experienced by animals in the wild due to predation and reproduction, questioning: "Why did nature not ordain that one animal should not live by the death of another?"^[76] In his 1779 posthumous work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, the philosopher David Hume describes the antagonism inflicted by animals upon each other and the psychological impact experienced by the victims, observing: "The stronger prey upon the weaker, and keep them in perpetual terror and anxiety."^[77]

In Natural Theology, published in 1802, Christian philosopher William Paley argues that animals in the wild die as a result of violence, decay, disease, starvation, and malnutrition, and that they exist in a state of suffering and misery; their suffering unaided by their fellow animals. He compares this to humans, who even when they cannot relieve the suffering of their fellow humans, at least provide them with necessities. Paley also engages with the reader of his book, asking whether, based on these observations, "you would alter the present system of pursuit and prey?"^{[78]: 261–262} Additionally, he argues that "the subject ... of animals devouring one another, forms the chief, if not the only instance, in the works of the Deity ... in which the character of utility can be called in question."^[78]: 265 He defends predation as being a part of God's design by asserting that it was a solution to the problem of superfecundity;^[79] animals producing more offspring than can possibly survive.^[78]: 264 Paley also contends that venom is a merciful way for poisonous animals to kill the animals that they predate.^[79]

The problem of evil has also been extended to include the suffering of animals in the context of evolution.^[80][81] In Phytologia, or the Philosophy of Agriculture and Gardening, published in 1800, Erasmus Darwin, a physician and the grandfather of Charles Darwin, aims to vindicate the goodness of God allowing the consumption of "lower" animals by "higher" ones, by asserting that "more pleasurable sensation exists in the world, as the organic matter is taken from a state of less irritability and less sensibility and converted into a greater"; he states that this process secures the greatest happiness for sentient beings. Writing in response in 1894, Edward Payson Evans, a linguist and early advocate for animal rights, argues that the theory of evolution, which regards the antagonism between animals purely as events within the context of a "universal struggle for existence", has disregarded this kind of theodicy and ended "teleological attempts to infer from the nature and operations of creation the moral character of the Creator".^[82]

In an 1856 letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker, Charles Darwin remarks sarcastically on the cruelty and wastefulness of nature, describing it as something that a "Devil's chaplain" could write about.^[83] Writing in 1860, to Asa Gray, Darwin asserts that he could not reconcile an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God with the intentional existence of the Ichneumonidae, a parasitoid wasp family, the larvae of which feed internally on the living bodies of caterpillars.^[84] In his autobiography, published in 1887, Darwin described a feeling of revolt at the idea that God's benevolence is limited, stating that "for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?"^[85]

Various solutions for animal suffering have been presented in Islamic philosophy and theology. One proposed solution to address this issue, suggested by Shia theologians, asserts that two conditions together can justify animal suffering: (1) the existence of some basic benefits in animal suffering, such as strengthening courage and sympathy among animals; and (2) compensating for the suffering of animals after death. According to this theodicy, the justification for animal suffering lies in the presence of certain benefits derived from such experiences. Additionally, the theory posits that the pain endured by animals will be compensated on the Day of Judgment. On that day, animals will attain heavenly blessings as a form of recompense for their previous sufferings, morally justifying overall animal suffering. This theodicy embraces the notion of an afterlife for animals.^[86]

Philosopher Ole Martin Moen argues that, unlike Western and Judeo-Christian views, Eastern religions, such as Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, "all hold that the natural world is filled with suffering, that suffering is bad for all who endure it, and that our ultimate aim should be to bring suffering to an end."^[87]

In Buddhist doctrine, rebirth as an animal is regarded as evil because of the different forms of suffering that animals experience due to humans and natural processes.^[88] Buddhists may also regard the suffering experienced by animals in nature as evidence for the truth of dukkha.^[89][90] The Buddhist scripture Aṅguttara Nikāya describes the lives of wild animals as "so cruel, so harsh, so painful".^[90]

The Indian Buddhist sutra, Saddharmasmṛtyupasthānasūtra, written in the first half of the first millennium, categorises the different forms of suffering experienced by the animals living in the water, on the earth and in the sky and draws attention to certain animals who can be liberated from their suffering through consciousness. It states: "There are those [animals] who—[though] fearful of predation, of threats, beatings, cold, heat, and bad weather—if capable, disregard their trembling and, just for a moment, arouse a mind of faith towards the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha."^[91]

Around 700 AD, the Indian Buddhist monk and scholar Shantideva writes in his Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra:^[92]

     And may the stooping animals be freed
     From fear of being preyed upon, each other's food.

Patrul Rinpoche, a 19th-century Tibetan Buddhist teacher, describes animals in the ocean as experiencing "immense suffering", as a result of predation, as well as parasites burrowing inside them and eating them alive. He also describes animals on land as existing in a state of continuous fear and of killing and being killed.^[93]

Calvin Baker argues that Buddhist perspectives on wild animal suffering present significant ethical complexities. From a traditional Buddhist standpoint, the cycle of rebirth (samsara) makes it difficult to prioritize animal welfare, as alleviating temporary suffering does not address the deeper issue of suffering inherent in samsaric existence. However, in a naturalized Buddhist view, which rejects the concept of rebirth, Baker contends that sentience alone is insufficient for moral patienthood, as not all sentient beings experience suffering in the way that Buddhist ethics emphasizes. Furthermore, he suggests that if wild animals live predominantly negative lives, their extinction could be morally preferable, as it would represent an end to suffering rather than a tragic loss, challenging conventional conservationist approaches.^[94]

Hindu literature has been described as holding the lives and welfare of wild animals as equal with that of humans.^[95] Morris and Thornhill argue that Hinduism provides a framework for addressing wild animal suffering through spiritual advancement and non-violence. They highlight how Hindu beliefs, particularly ahimsa and the transformative power of moral growth, suggest that human sanctity can lead to peace even among hostile species, as reflected in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. Additionally, they point to the Srimad Bhagavatam, where carnivores coexist peacefully without predation, as an idealized vision of nature free from suffering. For Morris and Thornhill, Hinduism offers a hopeful perspective that spiritual development can mitigate non-anthropogenic suffering, aligning religious values with the protection and care of wild animals.^[96]

In Histoire Naturelle, published in 1753, the naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon describes wild animals as suffering much want in the winter, focusing specifically on the plight of stags who are exhausted by the rutting season, which in turn leads to the breeding of parasites under their skin, further adding to their misery.^[97]: 53 Later in the book, he describes predation as necessary to prevent the superabundance of animals who produce vast numbers of offspring, who if not killed would have their fecundity diminished due to a lack of food and would die as a result of disease and starvation. Buffon concludes that "violent deaths seem to be equally as necessary as natural ones; they are both modes of destruction and renovation; the one serves to preserve nature in a perpetual spring, and the other maintains the order of her productions, and limits the number of each species."^{[97]: 116–117}

Johann Gottfried Herder, a philosopher and theologian, in Ideen zur Philosphie der Geschichte der Menschheit, published between 1784 and 1791, argues that animals exist in a state of constant striving, needing to provide for their own subsistence and to defend their lives. He contends that nature ensured peace in creation by creating an equilibrium of animals with different instincts and belonging to different species who live opposed to each other.^[98]

In 1824, Lewis Gompertz, an early vegan and animal rights activist, published Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes, in which he advocates for an egalitarian view towards animals and aiding animals suffering in the wild.^[6] Gompertz asserts that humans and animals in their natural state both suffer similarly:^[99]: 47

[B]oth of them being miserably subject to almost every evil, destitute of the means of palliating them; living in the continual apprehension of immediate starvation, of destruction by their enemies, which swarm around them; of receiving dreadful injuries from the revengeful and malicious feelings of their associates, uncontrolled by laws or by education, and acting as their strength alone dictates; without proper shelter from the inclemencies of the weather; without proper attention and medical or surgical aid in sickness; destitute frequently of fire, of candle-light, and (in man) also of clothing; without amusements or occupations, excepting a few, the chief of which are immediately necessary for their existence, and subject to all the ill consequences arising from the want of them.

Gompertz argues that as much as animals suffer in the wild, they suffer much more at the hands of humans because, in their natural state, they have the capacity to also experience periods of much enjoyment.^[99]: 52 Additionally, he contends that if he was to encounter a situation where an animal was eating another, that he would intervene to help the animal being attacked, even if "this might probably be wrong".^{[99]: 93–94} In his 1852 book Fragments in Defence of Animals, and Essays on Morals, Soul, and Future State, Gompertz compares the suffering of animals in the wild to the suffering inflicted by humans, stating: "Much as animals suffer in a natural state, much more do they seem to suffer when under the dominion of the generality of men. What suffering in the former can be supposed to equal the constant torture of a hackney-coach horse?"^[100]

Philosophers Giacomo Leopardi and Arthur Schopenhauer cite the suffering of animals in the wild as evidence to support their pessimistic worldviews. In his 1824 work "Dialogue between Nature and an Icelander" from Operette morali, Leopardi uses images of animal predation, which he dismisses as having inherent value, to symbolize nature's cycles of creation and destruction.^[101] Writing in his notebooks, Zibaldone di pensieri, published posthumously in 1898, Leopardi asserts that predation is a leading example of the evil design of nature.^[102] In 1851, Schopenhauer commented on the vast amount of suffering in nature, drawing attention to the asymmetry between the pleasure experienced by a carnivorous animal and the suffering of the animal that they are consuming, stating: "Whoever wants summarily to test the assertion that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain, or at any rate that the two balance each other, should compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of that other."^[103]

In the 1874 posthumous essay "Nature", utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill writes about suffering in nature and the imperative of struggling against it:^[104]

In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are nature's every day performances. ... The phrases which ascribe perfection to the course of nature can only be considered as the exaggerations of poetic or devotional feeling, not intended to stand the test of a sober examination. No one, either religious or irreligious, believes that the hurtful agencies of nature, considered as a whole, promote good purposes, in any other way than by inciting human rational creatures to rise up and struggle against them. ... Whatsoever, in nature, gives indication of beneficent design proves this beneficence to be armed only with limited power; and the duty of man is to cooperate with the beneficent powers, not by imitating, but by perpetually striving to amend, the course of nature—and bringing that part of it over which we can exercise control more nearly into conformity with a high standard of justice and goodness.

In his 1892 book Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress, the writer and early activist for animal rights Henry Stephens Salt focuses an entire chapter on the plight of wild animals. Salt emphasizes the moral obligation to respect the autonomy and right to life of animals, drawing parallels between the treatment of wild animals and uncivilized human tribes. He argues that animals, like humans, have a right to live unmolested and uninjured unless their existence directly threatens human welfare. While humans are justified in self-defense or safeguarding against the overpopulation of certain species that could disrupt human dominance, they are not justified in unnecessarily killing or torturing harmless creatures. Salt acknowledges the difficulty in defining the ethical limits of interfering with the autonomy of others, whether animals or human tribes, but stresses that unnecessary harm is morally indefensible.^[105]

In Better-World Philosophy, published in 1899, zoologist and philosopher J. Howard Moore critiques the cruelty of natural selection and the suffering animals experience in the wild, emphasizing the relentless predation and struggle for survival that defines much of nature.^{[106]: 125, 190} He argues that the principle of natural selection is "irrational and barbarous", leading to a world filled with unnecessary suffering, and he called for its replacement with conscious, ethical principles driven by human intervention.^[106]: 91 Moore saw humanity as uniquely positioned to alleviate this suffering due to its intellectual and moral capacities, proposing that humans take on the role of reforming and regenerating the universe, including improving the relationships among all living beings.^{[106]: 90–91} He envisions an ideal future where humanity strives to repair the "clumsy natures" of other animals and to reduce the misery imposed by nature's processes, advocating for a compassionate stewardship of life on Earth.^{[106]: 126, 163}

Moore expands on these ideas in his 1906 book, The Universal Kinship:^[107]

Inhumanity is everywhere. The whole planet is steeped in it. Every creature faces an inhospitable universeful, and every life is a campaign. It has all come about as a result of the mindless and inhuman manner in which life has been developed on the earth ... one cannot help thinking sometimes, when, in his more daring and vivid moments, he comes to comprehend the real character and condition of the world ... and cannot help wondering whether an ordinary human being with only common-sense and insight and an average concern for the welfare of the world would not make a great improvement in terrestrial affairs if he only had the opportunity for a while.

In Ethics and Education, published in 1912, Moore critiques the human conception of animals in the wild. He writes: "Many of these non-human beings are so remote from human beings in language, appearance, interests, and ways of life, as to be nothing but 'wild animals.' These 'wild things' have, of course, no rights whatever in the eyes of men."^[108]: 71 Later in the book, he describes them as independent beings who suffer and enjoy in the same way humans do and have their "own ends and justifications of life".^[108]: 157

In his 1952 article "Which Shall We Protect? Thoughts on the Ethics of the Treatment of Free Life", Alexander Skutch, a naturalist and writer, explores five ethical principles that humans could follow when considering their relationship with animals in the wild, including the principle of only considering human interests; the laissez-faire, or "hands-off" principle; the do no harm, ahimsa principle; the principle of favoring the "higher animals", which are most similar to ourselves; the principle of "harmonious association", whereby humans and animals in the wild could live symbiotically, with each providing benefits to the other and individuals who disrupt this harmony, such as predators, are removed. Skutch endorses a combination of the laissez-faire, ahimsa, and harmonious association approaches as the way to create the ultimate harmony between humans and animals in the wild.^[109]

The moral obligations of humans regarding wild animal suffering have been debated by both animal and environmental ethicists. In 1973, moral philosopher Peter Singer addressed whether humans have a duty to prevent predation, suggesting that while intervention might cause greater suffering in the long term, he would support it if it resulted in a positive outcome.^[110] In 1979, animal rights philosopher Stephen R. L. Clark argued in "The Rights of Wild Things" that humans should protect wild animals from significant dangers but are not obligated to regulate all natural interactions.^[111]

Environmental ethicist J. Baird Callicott contrasted the foundations of the animal liberation movement, rooted in Benthamite utilitarianism, with Aldo Leopold's land ethic, a model for environmental ethics. He concluded that fundamental differences exist between these positions, particularly regarding wild animal suffering.^[112]

Animal rights philosopher Steve F. Sapontzis argued in his 1987 book Morals, Reason, and Animals that, from an antispeciesist viewpoint, humans should assist wild animals suffering in the wild, provided that such aid does not cause greater overall harm.^[113]

In 1991, environmental philosopher Arne Næss criticized the "cult of nature", characterizing prevailing attitudes of indifference toward suffering in nature as problematic. He argued that humans should confront the realities of the wilderness, including intervening in natural processes when feasible to alleviate suffering.^[114]

The animal rights philosopher David Olivier expressed opposition to environmentalism in his 1993 article "Pourquoi je ne suis pas écologiste" ("Why I Am Not An Environmentalist"), published in the antispeciesist journal Cahiers antispécistes. Olivier criticized environmentalists for valuing predation as part of the "natural balance" and species preservation while giving less weight to the suffering of individual animals. He argued that this attitude would not hold if humans themselves were subject to predation. Olivier acknowledged the difficulty of finding solutions but maintained the importance of prioritizing individual animal welfare over abstract notions of natural order.^[115]

In 2009, essayist Brian Tomasik authored "The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering", where he argues that the number of wild animals far exceeds the number of non-human animals under human control. Tomasik posits that animal advocates should promote concern for the suffering of animals in their natural habitats. He also highlights the potential for human descendants to vastly increase wild animal suffering if they chose to multiply rather than mitigate it.^[116] A revised version of the essay was published in the 2015 journal Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism, as part of a special issue titled "Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature", which featured various contributions on the topic.^[117][118] A follow-up issue on the topic was released in 2022.^[119]

Jeff McMahan's 2010 essay, "The Meat Eaters", published by The New York Times, advocates for reducing wild animal suffering, particularly through the reduction of predation.^[120] Following criticism, McMahan responded with another essay, "Predators: A Response".^[121] Vox has also explored this topic, publishing Jacy Reese Anthis's 2015 article "Wild animals endure illness, injury, and starvation. We should help".^[122] In his 2018 book, The End of Animal Farming, Anthis discusses broadening human moral concern to include invertebrates and wild animals.^[123] Vox continued this discussion in 2021 with Dylan Matthews's article "The wild frontier of animal welfare", which examines the perspectives of various philosophers and scientists.^[124] Aeon has featured essays on wild animal suffering, including Steven Nadler's 2018 piece "We have an ethical obligation to relieve individual animal suffering"^[125] and Jeff Sebo's 2020 article "All we owe to animals".^[16]

In 2016, philosopher Catia Faria defended her Ph.D. thesis, Animal Ethics Goes Wild: The Problem of Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature, the first thesis of its kind to argue that humans have an obligation to help animals in the wild.^[126] She expanded on this topic in her 2022 book, Animal Ethics in the Wild: Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature.^[127] Philosopher Kyle Johannsen's 2020 book, Wild Animal Ethics: The Moral and Political Problem of Wild Animal Suffering, contends that wild animal suffering is a significant moral issue requiring human intervention.^[128] A symposium at Queen's University discussed Johannsen's book the same year.^[129] In 2022, animal rights activist and philosopher Oscar Horta included a chapter titled "In defense of animals!" in his book Making a Stand for Animals, arguing for moral consideration and assistance for animals suffering from natural processes.^[130] Johannsen has edited Positive Duties to Wild Animals, a collection of essays from various scholars aimed at advancing interventionist approaches to wild animal suffering through diverse theoretical frameworks.^[131]

In response to arguments for the moral and political importance of wild animal suffering, a number of organizations have been created to research and address the issue. Two of these, Utility Farm and Wild-Animal Suffering Research merged in 2019 to form Wild Animal Initiative.^[132] The nonprofit organization Animal Ethics also researches wild animal suffering and advocates on behalf of wild animals, among other populations.^[133] Rethink Priorities is a research organization which, among other topics, has conducted research on wild animal suffering, particularly around invertebrate sentience and invertebrate welfare.^[134][135]

The Wildlife Disaster Network was founded in 2020 with the intention of helping wild animals suffering in natural disasters. Jamie Payton, who works for the network, challenges the view that wild animals in disasters situations manage best when left alone, stating: "Without human interference, these animals will suffer and succumb, due not only to their injuries but also to the loss of food, water and habitat. It is our obligation to provide the missing link for the wildlife that share our home."^[136]

In September 2022, New York University launched a Wild Animal Welfare Program to research and host events exploring how human activity and environmental changes impact wild animal welfare. The program aims to improve understanding of how humans can improve their interactions with wild animals and includes research in natural, social and humanities sciences. The team conducts outreach to academics, advocates, policymakers and the public. The program is led by Becca Franks and Jeff Sebo, and also includes Arthur Caplan and Danielle Spiegel-Feld.^[137]

A tadpole; an individual animal. Animal ethicists place the well-being and interests of sentient individuals at the center of their moral concern

A rainforest; a biodiverse ecosystem. Environmental ethicists place the preservation of entities, such as these, at the center of their moral concern

A significant philosophical discussion regarding wild animal suffering concerns the differing emphases of animal ethics and environmental ethics. Environmental ethics generally prioritizes the preservation of entities such as species, ecosystems, and natural processes, often advocating for minimal interference with these systems. In contrast, animal ethics focuses on the welfare and interests of individual animals. These differing priorities can result in contrasting ethical conclusions.^{[138][139][140]}

Examples illustrating these differences include environmentalist support for hunting as a population management tool, which is typically opposed by animal rights advocates;^[73] animal ethics arguments favoring the extinction or genetic modification of carnivores or r-strategist species, while deep ecologists emphasize the value of species and populations as wholes and advocate for their preservation and natural flourishing;^[141][142] and concerns within animal ethics regarding reducing wildlife habitats to alleviate suffering, which contrast with environmentalist efforts to conserve and expand such habitats.^[143][144]

Despite these differences, scholars such as Oscar Horta, argue that animal ethics and environmental ethics can align in certain cases to support interventions aimed at reducing wild animal suffering.^[144]

Some philosophers consider predation a moral problem, arguing that humans have a duty to prevent it.^[11][145] Others maintain that intervention is not ethically required.^[146][147] Some authors argue that, although intervention is not advisable at present due to potential unintended consequences, future advances in knowledge and technology may allow for effective action.^[141] Some writers contend that an obligation to prevent predation is untenable or absurd, sometimes using this position as a reductio ad absurdum to challenge the concept of animal rights altogether.^[148][149] Others argue that attempts to reduce predation could result in environmental harm.^[150]

Some theorists debate whether the harms animals experience in the wild should be accepted as natural or whether there is a moral obligation to mitigate such suffering.^[4] The justification for interventions aimed at reducing wild animal suffering can be based on either rights-based or welfare-based ethical frameworks. From a rights-based perspective, if animals possess moral rights such as the right to life or bodily integrity, intervention may be necessary to prevent violations of these rights by other animals.^[151] However, animal rights philosopher Tom Regan argues that because animals are not moral agents responsible for their actions, they cannot violate each other's rights. Consequently, humans have no obligation to prevent suffering caused by natural interactions unless those interactions are significantly influenced by human activity.^{[152]: 14–15}

Oscar Horta challenges the assumption that animal rights imply respect for natural processes based on the perception that wild animals live easy, happy lives; instead, he states their lives are often short and marked by significant suffering.^[4] It has also been suggested that a non-speciesist legal system might grant wild animals positive rights—similar to those humans possess by virtue of species membership—such as rights to food, shelter, healthcare, and protection.^[153] From a welfare-based perspective, intervention may be warranted when it is possible to prevent some suffering experienced by wild animals without causing greater harm.^[154] Katie McShane critiques the use of biodiversity as a proxy for wild animal welfare, noting that regions with high biodiversity may contain many individuals living lives characterized by suffering, despite contributing positively to biodiversity metrics.^[155]

Some scholars have highlighted ethical and practical complexities arising from tensions between animal rights and environmental ethics. Werner Scholtz (2024) emphasizes the conflict between individual-centered animal rights and holistic environmentalism, which prioritizes ecosystem integrity and biodiversity. He proposes wild animal rights as group-based and distinct from those of domesticated animals, grounded in a concept of "non-exclusionary dignity" that recognizes animals' intrinsic value without replicating human-centered frameworks. Scholtz argues that recognizing wild animal rights does not require ending all natural suffering, such as predation, and that interventions should balance individual welfare with ecological realities, including the humane management of invasive species.^[156] Similarly, Gary Comstock (2016) contrasts animal individualism—which grounds moral value in sentient individuals and their capacity for pain and pleasure—with holism, which values ecosystems as wholes. Comstock states that individualism is supported by more secure philosophical and scientific grounds and better supports environmental policies protecting sentient beings through existing legal and political institutions.^[157] Both authors acknowledge challenges in applying rights-based ethics to wild animals and advocate for integrating respect for individuals alongside ecological contexts.^[156][157]

Some authors argue that humans' refusal to aid animals suffering in the wild, while aiding humans in similar circumstances, constitutes a form of speciesism;^[2] defined as the differential treatment or moral consideration of individuals based on their species membership.^[158] Philosopher Jamie Mayerfeld suggests that a duty to relieve suffering that is impartial to species membership implies an obligation to assist animals suffering due to natural processes.^[159] Stijn Bruers argues that even some long-term animal rights advocates may hold speciesist views regarding this issue, which he terms a "moral blind spot".^[160] Eze Paez similarly contends that dismissing the interests of animals solely because they live in the wild amounts to a form of discrimination comparable to justifications used for the exploitation of animals by humans.^[161] Oscar Horta argues that raising awareness of speciesism could increase concern for the welfare of animals living in the wild.^[162]

Environmental writer George Monbiot has discussed the ethical challenges involved in culling deer during ecological restoration in the Scottish Highlands, where the absence of natural predators has contributed to increased deer numbers and changes in vegetation. He acknowledges the moral difficulty of killing wild animals but argues that such culling may be necessary to protect other species and restore ecosystems affected by human activity. Monbiot addresses a speciesism-related critique posed by some animal rights advocates: if killing wild animals to mitigate environmental harm is acceptable, why might killing humans for their greater environmental impact not be? He identifies this as a significant moral question and characterizes prioritizing human survival and ecological restoration as involving a form of speciesism, which he frames as a pragmatic stance rather than a claim of inherent human superiority.^[163]

Oscar Horta observes that humans frequently intervene in nature in significant ways to advance human interests, including environmental objectives. He notes that such interventions are commonly regarded as realistic, safe, or acceptable when they primarily benefit humans, but are less often considered so when aimed at assisting wild animals. Horta argues that the scope of human interventions should be expanded to consider the interests of all sentient beings, not just humans.^[15]

Although he acknowledges the practical and social challenges involved, Horta contends that these difficulties should not hinder efforts to extend intervention beyond human-centered goals. He warns that interventions carried out without sufficient knowledge risk causing unintended ecological harm, highlighting the importance of further research and careful planning. Additionally, interventions aimed at wild animals may be viewed by many as unrealistic or impractical, which can lead to skepticism or resistance. He further notes that efforts to raise public awareness and support for wild animal welfare often progress more slowly than those focused on human concerns.^[15]

An illustrative example of large-scale human intervention motivated by human interests is the eradication of the New World screwworm (Cochliomyia hominivorax) from North and Central America. This parasitic fly infests warm-blooded animals—including livestock and wild species such as deer, squirrels, and other mammals—by laying eggs in open wounds, resulting in severe tissue damage. Beginning in the 1950s, the United States Department of Agriculture implemented a sterile insect technique program that involved mass-rearing and releasing sterilized male screwworms to disrupt reproduction. Through extensive international cooperation, continuous monitoring, and maintenance of a sterile insect barrier along the Panama-Colombia border to prevent reinfestation, the program successfully eliminated the screwworm from much of the continent.^[164]

This eradication effort improved livestock health and productivity and likely reduced suffering among wild animals affected by the parasite, including species such as jaguars, sloths, tapirs, horses, coyotes, buffalo, rabbits, and squirrels. However, it also influenced ecological dynamics, such as contributing to increases in wild deer populations that were previously limited by screwworm-related mortality. The sterile insect technique developed in this program has since been applied to control other agricultural pest species. This example demonstrates large-scale human intervention in natural ecosystems primarily driven by human agricultural interests.^[164]

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that humans continually "affect the habitats of animals, determining opportunities for nutrition, free movement, and other aspects of flourishing." She contends that due to pervasive human involvement in natural processes, humans have a moral responsibility to assist individuals affected by their actions. Nussbaum also suggests that humans may have the capacity to help animals suffering from entirely natural causes, such as diseases and natural disasters, and that there may be duties to provide care in such cases.^[165]: 374

Philosopher Jeff Sebo observes that animals in the wild suffer from both natural processes and human-caused harms. He states that climate change is intensifying existing harms and creating new challenges for these animals. Based on this, Sebo concludes there are two reasons to help individual wild animals: because they are suffering and dying, and because humans are partly or wholly responsible for these conditions.^[16] Similarly, philosopher Steven Nadler argues that climate change expands the range of actions that ethical consideration of animal suffering should prohibit or require. Nadler further asserts that humans have a moral obligation to assist individual animals suffering in the wild, regardless of the extent of human responsibility.^[125]

Catia Faria argues that gender identity shapes how humans perceive and respond to wild animals, with androcentric perspectives, meaning views centered on male experiences and priorities, contributing to harm and indifference. She suggests that anthropogenic harms—those caused by human activities—are frequently overlooked due to gendered assumptions that prioritize human-centered viewpoints. According to Faria, these cultural norms may reduce recognition of the suffering animals endure from human actions, thereby minimizing ethical concerns related to such harms.^[166]

Faria further critiques the prevalent indifference toward naturogenic harms—those arising from natural processes—linking this attitude to a gendered perspective that emphasizes the autonomy of nature. This view often prioritizes ecosystems as interconnected wholes, which can result in overlooking the suffering of individual animals in favor of preserving an idealized natural order. She calls for reexamining these perspectives and advocates for ethical approaches that emphasize compassion for individual animals rather than abstract ecological concepts.^[166]

By contrast, the ecofeminist perspective highlights the interconnectedness of feminist and environmental concerns, emphasizing how patriarchal domination affects both women and nature, including nonhuman animals. Ecofeminism connects the defense of women's and animal interests with the preservation of natural systems such as ecosystems and species. Proponents argue that fostering a conservationist alliance with nature and respecting natural processes is crucial to addressing these harms. While this approach acknowledges the importance of individual animals, it typically places greater emphasis on ecological wholes and wilderness preservation, accepting that efforts to maintain or restore ecosystems may sometimes involve trade-offs affecting individual animals. This perspective contrasts with positions that prioritize individual animal welfare over broader ecological considerations.^[167]

A common objection to intervening in nature is that it would be impractical, either because of the amount of work involved or because the complexity of ecosystems would make it difficult to know whether or not an intervention would be net beneficial on balance.^[121] Aaron Simmons argues that humans should not intervene to save animals in nature because doing so would result in unintended consequences, such as damaging ecosystems, interfering with human projects, or resulting in more animal deaths overall.^[11] Nicolas Delon and Duncan Purves argue that the "nature of ecosystems leaves us with no reason to predict that interventions would reduce, rather than exacerbate, suffering".^[9] Peter Singer argues that intervention in nature would be justified if one could be reasonably confident that this would greatly reduce wild animal suffering and death in the long run. In practice, Singer cautions against interfering with ecosystems because he fears that doing so would cause more harm than good.^[110][168]

Other authors dispute Singer's empirical claim about the likely consequences of intervening in the natural world and argue that some types of intervention can be expected to produce good consequences overall. Economist Tyler Cowen cites examples of animal species whose extinction is not generally regarded as having been on balance bad for the world. Cowen also observes that insofar as humans are already intervening in nature, the relevant practical question is not whether there should be intervention but what particular forms of intervention should be favored.^[154] Oscar Horta similarly writes that there are already many cases in which humans intervene in nature for other reasons, such as for human interest in nature and environmental preservation as something valuable in their own rights.^[4] Horta has also proposed that courses of action aiming at helping wild animals should be carried out and adequately monitored first in urban, suburban, industrial, or agricultural areas.^[169] Likewise, Jeff McMahan argues that since humans "are already causing massive, precipitate changes in the natural world", humans should favor those changes that would promote the survival "of herbivorous rather than carnivorous species".^[121] Philosopher Peter Vallentyne suggests that while humans should not eliminate predators in nature, they can intervene to help prey in more limited ways. In the same way that humans help humans in need when the cost is small, humans might help some wild animals at least in limited circumstances.^[170]

Some writers, such as the environmental ethicist Holmes Rolston III, argue that natural animal suffering is valuable because it serves an ecological purpose and that only animal suffering due to non-natural processes is morally bad, and thus humans do not have a duty to intervene in cases of suffering caused by natural processes.^{[171][page needed]} Rolston celebrates carnivores in nature because of the significant ecological role they play.^[142] Others argue that the reason that humans have a duty to protect other humans from predation but not wild animals is that humans are part of the cultural world rather than the natural world, and so different rules apply to them in these situations.^[142][172] Some writers assert that animals who are preyed upon are fulfilling their natural function, and thus flourishing when they are preyed upon or otherwise die, since this allows natural selection to work.^[151]

Yves Bonnardel, an animal rights philosopher, criticizes this view, as well as the concept of nature, which he describes as an "ideological tool" that places humans in a superior position above other animals, who exist only to perform certain ecosystem functions, such as a rabbit being food for a wolf. Bonnardel compares this with the religious idea that a slaves exist for their masters, or that woman exists for the sake of man. He argues that animals as individuals all have an interest in living.^[173]

Wilderness advocates argue that wilderness is intrinsically valuable; the biologist E. O. Wilson wrote that "wilderness has virtue unto itself and needs no extraneous justification".^[174] Joshua Duclos describes the moral argument against preserving wilderness because of the suffering experienced by wild animals who live in them as the "objection from welfare".^[175] Jack Walker argues that the "intrinsic value of wildness cannot be used to oppose large-scale interventions to reduce [wild animal suffering]".^[176] Joshua Duclos observes that wilderness is given intrinsic value of from a narrow anthropocentric perspective, with a religio-spiritual dimension.^[177]

The idyllic view of nature is described as the widely-held view that happiness in nature is widespread.^[4][5] Oscar Horta argues that even though many people are aware of the harms that animals in the wild experience, such as predation, starvation and disease, as well as recognizing that these animals may suffer as a result of these harms, they do not conclude from this that wild animals have bad enough lives to imply that nature is not a happy place. Horta also contends that a romantic conception of nature has significant implications for attitudes people have towards animals in the wild, as holders of the view may oppose interventions to reduce suffering.^[4]

Bob Fischer argues that many wild animals may have net negative lives (experiencing more pain than pleasure) even in the absence of human activity. Fischer argues that if many animals have net negative lives, then what is good for the animal, as an individual, may not be good for its species, other species, the climate, or the preservation of biodiversity; for example, some animals may have to have their populations massively reduced and controlled and some species, such as parasites or predators, eliminated.^[178]

Some writers argue that interventions to reduce wild animal suffering would be an example of arrogance, hubris, or playing God, as such interventions could potentially have disastrous unforeseen consequences. They are also skeptical of the competence of humans when it comes to making correct moral judgements, as well as human fallibility. Additionally, they contend that the moral stance of humans and moral agency can lead to the imposition of anthropocentric or paternalistic values on others. To support these claims, they use the history of human negative impacts on nature, including species extinctions, wilderness, and resource depletion, as well as climate change. From this, they conclude that the best way that humans can help animals in the wild is through the preservation of larger wilderness areas and by reducing the human sphere of influence on nature.^[12]

Critics of this position, such as Beril Sözmen, argue that human negative impacts are not inevitable and that, until recently, interventions were not undertaken with the goal of improving the well-being of individual animals in the wild. Furthermore, she contends that such examples of anthropogenic harms are not the consequence of misguided human intervention gone awry but are in fact the result of human agriculture and industry, which do not consider, or do not care, about their impact on nature and animals in the wild. Sözmen also asserts that the holders of this position may view that nature as exists in a delicate state of balance and have an overly romantic view of the lives of animals in the wild, and she contends that the wild contain vast amounts of suffering.^[12] Martha Nussbaum argues that because humans are constantly intervening in nature, the central question should be what form should these interventions take rather than whether interventions should take place, arguing that "intelligently respectful paternalism is vastly superior to neglect".^[165]: 377

A laissez-faire view, which holds that humans should not harm animals in the wild, but do not have an obligation to aid these individuals when in need, has been defended by Tom Regan, Elisa Aaltola, Clare Palmer, and Ned Hettinger. Regan argues that the suffering animals inflict on each other should not be a concern of ethically motivated wildlife management, and that these wildlife managers should instead focus on letting animals in the wild exist as they are, with no human predation, and to "carve out their own destiny".^[13] Aaltola similarly argues that predators should be left to flourish despite the suffering that they cause to the animals that they predate.^[14] Palmer endorses a variant of this position, which argues that humans may have an obligation to assist wild animals if humans are responsible for their situation.^[179] Hettinger argues for laissez-faire based on the environmental value of "Respect for an Independent Nature".^[180]

Catia Faria argues that following the principle that humans should only help individuals when they are being harmed by humans, rather than by natural processes, would also mean refusing to help humans and companion animals when they suffer due to natural processes; this implication does not seem acceptable to most people, and she asserts that there are strong reasons to help these individuals when humans have capacity to do so. Faria argues that there is an obligation to help animals in the wild suffering in similar situations, and thus the laissez-faire view does not hold up.^[181] Similarly, Steven Nadler argues that it is morally wrong to refuse help to animals in the wild regardless of whether humans are indirectly or directly responsible for their suffering, as the same arguments used to decline aid to humans who were suffering due to natural harms, such as famine, a tsunami, or pneumonia, would be considered immoral. He concludes that if the only thing that is morally relevant is an individual's capacity to suffer, there is no relevant moral difference between humans and other animals suffering in these situations.^[125] In the same vein, Steve F. Sapontizis asserts: "When our interests or the interests of those we care for will be hurt, we do not recognize a moral obligation to 'let nature take its course'."^[182]

Some writers, such as the animal rights philosophers Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka in Zoopolis, argue that humans should not perform large interventions to help animals in the wild. They assert that these interventions would be taking away their sovereignty by removing the ability for these animals to govern themselves.^[183] Christiane Bailey asserts that certain wild animals, especially prosocial animals, have sufficient criteria to be considered as moral agents, that is to say, individuals capable of making moral judgments and who have responsibilities. She argues that aiding them could be reducing wild animals to beings incapable of making decisions for themselves.^[184]

Oscar Horta emphasizes the fact that although some individuals may form sovereign groups, the vast majority of wild animals are either solitary or re-selectors, whose population size varies greatly from year to year. He contends that most of their interactions would be amensalism, commensalism, antagonism, or competition. Horta concludes that the majority of animals in the wild would not form sovereign communities if humans use the criteria established by Donaldson and Kymlicka.^[185]

Estiva Reus asserts that a comparison exists, from a certain perspective, between those who saw it as necessary human progress for "backward peoples" to be colonized, and writers who argue for reforming nature in the interest of wild animals: the proponents of the two positions consider that they have the right and the duty, because of their superior skills, to model the existence of beings unable to remedy by their own means the evils which overwhelm them.^[186]

Thomas Lepeltier, a historian and writer on animal ethics, argues that "if colonization is to be criticized, it is because, beyond the rhetoric, it was an enterprise of spoliation and exaction exercised with great cruelty".^[187] He also contends that writers who advocate for helping wild animals do not do so for their own benefit as they would have nothing to gain by helping them. Lepeltier goes on to assert that the advocates for reducing wild animal suffering would be aware of their doubts about how to best help these animals and that they would not act by considering them as rudimentary and simple to understand beings, contrary to the vision that the former colonizers had of colonized populations.^[187]

Some writers argue that cognitive and social biases contribute to the neglect of wild animal suffering by influencing human perceptions and moral reasoning. Examples include:^{[87][188][189][190]}

• Speciesism and anthropocentrism: The belief that humans are more valuable than non-human animals often leads to neglecting the suffering of wild animals. People tend to prioritize the well-being of species they relate to, like pets or livestock, while failing to extend the same moral consideration to wild animals, especially those that are less relatable.
• Appeal to nature: The idea that if something is "natural" (like predation), it is morally acceptable. This bias ignores the fact that just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean it is morally justified or good.
• Status-quo bias: A tendency to assume that the current state of nature, including predation and suffering, is morally optimal simply because it is the way things are. It causes people to resist interventions to reduce suffering in nature.
• Scope neglect: People tend to underestimate the total amount of suffering because they focus on individual cases (e.g., one predator and one prey) and neglect the sheer scale of suffering across species, especially those with high mortality rates.
• Just-world fallacy: The belief that nature is inherently just and that suffering, such as predation, is deserved or part of a greater balance, which leads to moral justification for harmful natural processes.
• Futility thinking: People dismiss interventions aimed at reducing wild animal suffering because they think the problem is too vast or that any solution would be too small to make a difference, or wouldn't work at all.
• Perpetrator and omission biases: People are more likely to focus on specific, identifiable perpetrators (such as humans) causing harm and ignore the systemic, natural causes of suffering in the wild (like predation, disease, and competition).
• Focus on rare events: The media and public attention often focus on rare, dramatic cases, like shark attacks, rather than the ongoing and widespread suffering of wild animals.
• Underestimation of public receptivity: The idea that the public is less likely to care about wild animal suffering than they actually are, which may stifle efforts to advocate for the issue.
• Failure to consider future impact: A lack of focus on the potential long-term benefits of addressing wild animal suffering, which could create lasting improvements for countless future generations.
• Invertebrate suffering: The suffering of invertebrates, often ignored in discussions about wild animal welfare due to their perceived lesser capacity for suffering, is frequently overlooked in ethical considerations.

Existing ways that individual animals suffering in the wild are aided include providing medical care to sick and injured animals, vaccinating animals to prevent disease, taking care of orphaned animals, rescuing animals who are trapped, or in natural disasters, taking care of the needs of animals who are starving or thirsty, sheltering animals who are suffering due to weather conditions,^[162] and using contraception to regulate population sizes.^[191][192]

The Bishnoi, a Hindu sect founded in the 15th century, have a tradition of feeding wild animals.^[193] Some Bishnoi temples also act as rescue centres, where priests take care of injured animals; a few of these individuals are returned to the wild, while others remain, roaming freely in the temple compounds.^[194] The Borana Oromo people leave out water overnight for wild animals to drink because they believe that the animals have a right to drinking water.^[195]

In 2002, the Australian government authorized the killing of 15,000, out of 100,000, kangaroos who were trapped in a fenced-in national military base and suffering in a state of illness, misery and starvation.^[196] In 2016, 350 starving hippos and buffaloes at Kruger National Park were killed by park rangers; one of the motives for the action was to prevent them from suffering as they died.^[197]

Rescues of multiple animals in the wild have taken place. In 1988, the United States and Soviet governments collaborated in Operation Breakthrough to free three gray whales who were trapped in pack ice off the coast of Alaska.^[198] In 2018, a team of BBC filmmakers dug a ramp in the snow to allow a group of penguins to escape a ravine in Antarctica.^[199] In 2019, 2,000 baby flamingos were rescued during a drought in South Africa.^[200] During the 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, a number of fire-threatened wild animals were rescued.^[201] In 2020, 120 pilot whales, who were beached, were rescued in Sri Lanka.^[202] In 2021, 1,700 Cape cormorant chicks, who had been abandoned by their parents, were rescued in South Africa.^[203] In the same year, nearly 5,000 cold-stunned sea turtles were rescued in Texas.^[204]

Vaccination programs have been successfully implemented to prevent rabies and tuberculosis in wild animals.^[205] Wildlife contraception has been used to reduce and stabilize populations of wild horses, white-tailed deer, American bison, and African elephants.^[191][206]

It has been argued that in the future, based on research, feasibility and whether interventions could be carried out without increasing suffering overall, existing forms of assistance for wild animals could be employed on a larger scale to reduce suffering.^[122][207] Technological proposals include gene drives and CRISPR to reduce the suffering of members of r-strategist species,^[208] and using biotechnology to eradicate suffering in wild animals.^[18][209]

When it comes to reducing suffering as a result of predation, propositions include removing predators from wild areas,^[210][211] refraining from reintroducing predators into areas where they have previously gone extinct,^[73][212] arranging the gradual extinction of carnivorous species,^[54] and "reprogramming" them to become herbivores using germline engineering.^[207] With predation due to cats and dogs, it has been recommended that these companion animals should always be sterilized to prevent the existence of feral animals, and that cats should be kept indoors and dogs kept on a leash, unless in designated areas.^[213]

Rewilding projects have been advocated by various environmentalists, such as E. O. Wilson, who suggests that half of the Earth should be rewilded, and George Monbiot, who supports smaller-scale rewilding efforts. These programs often involve the reintroduction of species like wolves, beavers, and lynx to areas where they have been extirpated. However, Ole Martin Moen argues that such initiatives result in unnecessary suffering and should be halted. He claims that stopping rewilding efforts would reduce costs, ultimately freeing up resources to pursue other environmental goals.^[87]

Josh Milburn argues that while rewilding is often viewed as a positive goal, there are situations where dewilding—actively preventing rewilding—may be more ethically responsible. He suggests that for animals whose presence is the result of historical human intervention, creating and maintaining non-wild habitats may be essential for their survival. Rather than pushing these animals to adapt to restored wild environments, which may not suit their needs, humans may have a duty to ensure individuals of these species can thrive in habitats that are not "natural". Dewilding thus becomes a way to support animals who are dependent on human-created spaces due to past human actions.^[214]

Some writers, like Brian Tomasik, argue that from a consequentialist perspective that since most wild animals lead lives filled with suffering, habitat loss should be encouraged rather than opposed. Tyler M. John and Jeff Sebo discuss and tentatively criticize this position, terming it the "Logic of the Logger", based on the concept of the "Logic of the Larder".^[215]

Welfare biology is a proposed research field for studying the welfare of animals, with a particular focus on their relationship with natural ecosystems.^[216] It was first advanced in 1995 by Yew-Kwang Ng, who defined it as "the study of living things and their environment with respect to their welfare (defined as net happiness, or enjoyment minus suffering)".^[72] Such research is intended to promote concern for animal suffering in the wild and to establish effective actions that can be undertaken to help these individuals in the future.^[217][218] The organizations Animal Ethics and Wild Animal Initiative promote the establishment of welfare biology as a field of research.^[219]

It has been argued that climate change may have a large direct impact on a number of animals, with the largest effect on individuals who belong to specialist species that specialise in living in environments which could be most affected by climate change; this could then lead to replacement by individuals belonging to more generalist species. It has also been asserted that the indirect impact of climate change on wild animal suffering will be whether it leads to an increase or decrease of individuals being born into lives where they suffer and die shortly after coming into existence, with a large number of factors needing to be taken into consideration and requiring further study to assess this.^[144]

Several researchers and non-profit organizations have raised concern that human civilization may cause wild animal suffering outside Earth. For example, wild habitats may be created—or allowed to happen—on extraterrestrial colonies like terraformed planets.^[220][221] Another example of a potential realization of the risk is directed panspermia where the initial microbial population eventually evolves into sentient organisms.^{[222][223][224]} Spreading sentient wild animals beyond Earth may constitute a suffering risk, as this could potentially lead to an immense increase in the amount of wild animal suffering in existence.^[225]

It has been argued that much of people's knowledge about wild animals comes from wildlife documentaries, which have been described as non-representative of the reality of wild animal suffering because they underrepresent uncharismatic animals who may have the capacity to suffer, such as animals who are preyed upon, as well as small animals and invertebrates.^[226] In addition, it is argued that such documentaries focus on adult animals, while the majority of animals who likely suffer the most, die before reaching adulthood;^[226] that wildlife documentaries don't generally show animals suffering from parasitism;^[152]: 47 that such documentaries can leave viewers with the false impression that animals who have been attacked by predators and suffered serious injury survived and thrived afterwards;^[227] and that much of the particularly violent incidents of predation are not included.^[228] In an interview, the documentary broadcaster David Attenborough stated: "People who accuse us of putting in too much violence, [should see] what we leave on the cutting-room floor."^[229]

It is contended that wildlife documentaries present nature as a spectacle to be passively consumed by viewers, as well as a sacred and unique place that needs protection. Additionally, attention is drawn to how hardships that are experienced by animals are portrayed in a way that give the impression that wild animals, through adaptive processes, are able to overcome these sources of harm. The development of such adaptive traits takes place over a number of generations of individuals who will likely experience much suffering and hardship in their lives, while passing down their genes.^[230]

David Pearce, a transhumanist and advocate for technological solutions for reducing the suffering of wild animals, is highly critical of how wildlife documentaries, which he refers to as "animal snuff-movies", represent wild animal suffering:^[231]

Nature documentaries are mostly travesties of real life. They entertain and edify us with evocative mood-music and travelogue-style voice-overs. They impose significance and narrative structure on life's messiness. Wildlife shows have their sad moments, for sure. Yet suffering never lasts very long. It is always offset by homely platitudes about the balance of Nature, the good of the herd, and a sort of poor-man's secular theodicy on behalf of Mother Nature which reassures us that it's not so bad after all. ... That's a convenient lie. ... Lions kill their targets primarily by suffocation; which will last minutes. The wolf pack may start eating their prey while the victim is still conscious, though hamstrung. Sharks and the orca basically eat their prey alive; but in sections for the larger prey, notably seals.

Pearce argues, through analogy, how the idea of intelligent aliens creating stylised portrayals of human deaths for popular entertainment would be considered abhorrent; he asserts that, in reality, this is the role that humans play when creating wildlife documentaries.^[231]

Clare Palmer asserts that even when wildlife documentaries contain vivid images of wild animal suffering, they do not motivate a moral or practical response in the way that companion animals, such as dogs or cats, suffering in similar situations would and most people instinctively adopt the position of laissez-faire: allowing suffering to take its course, without intervention.^[232]

The question of whether wildlife documentary filmmakers should intervene to help animals is a topic of much debate.^[233] It has been described as a "golden rule" of such filmmaking to observe animals but not intervene.^[234] The rule is occasionally broken, with BBC documentary crews rescuing some stranded baby turtles in 2016 and rescuing a group of penguins trapped in a ravine in 2018;^[235] the latter decision was defended by other wildlife documentary filmmakers.^[199] Filmmakers following the rule have been criticized for filming dying animals, such as an elephant dying of thirst, without helping them.^[235]

Herman Melville, in Moby-Dick, published in 1851, describes the sea as a place of "universal cannibalism", where "creatures prey upon each other, carrying on eternal war since the world began"; this is illustrated by a later scene depicting sharks consuming their own entrails.^[236]

The fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen contain depictions of the suffering of animals due to natural processes and their rescues by humans. The titular character in "Thumbelina" encounters a seemingly dead frozen swallow. Thumbelina feels sorry for the bird and her companion the mole states: "What a wretched thing it is to be born a little bird. Thank goodness none of my children can be a bird, who has nothing but his 'chirp, chirp', and must starve to death when winter comes along."^[237] Thumbelina discovers that the swallow is not actually dead and manages to nurse them back to health.^[238] In "The Ugly Duckling", the bitter winter cold causes the duckling to become frozen in an icy pond; the duckling is rescued by a farmer who breaks the ice and takes the duckling to his home to be resuscitated.^[239]

In the 1923 book Bambi, a Life in the Woods, Felix Salten portrays a world where predation and death are continuous: a sick young hare is killed by crows, a pheasant and a duck are killed by foxes, a mouse is killed by an owl and a squirrel describes how their family members were killed by predators.^[240] The 1942 Disney adaptation of Bambi has been criticized for inaccurately portraying a world where predation and death are no longer emphasized, creating a "fantasy of nature cleansed of the traumas and difficulties that may trouble children and that adults prefer to avoid".^[241] The film version has also been criticized for unrealistically portraying nature undisturbed by humans as an idyllic place, made up of interspecies friendships, with Bambi's life undisturbed by many of the harms routinely experienced by his real-life counterparts, such as starvation, predation, bovine tuberculosis, and chronic wasting disease.^[226]

John Wyndham's character Zelby, in the 1957 book The Midwich Cuckoos, describes nature as "ruthless, hideous, and cruel beyond belief" and observes that the lives of insects are "sustained only by intricate processes of fantastic horror".^[242] In Watership Down, published in 1972, Richard Adams compares the hardship experienced by animals in winter to the suffering experienced by poor humans, stating: "For birds and animals, as for poor men, winter is another matter. Rabbits, like most wild animals, suffer hardship."^[243] Adams also describes rabbits as being more susceptible to disease in the winter.^[243]

The Animals of Farthing Wood, a children's television series, includes several portrayals of wild animals dying due to natural causes, including predation. For example, the Badger dies of old age, baby mice are killed by a shrike, and Mrs. Rabbit, Mrs. Hare, and Mrs. Vole are killed by Scarface, a fox. Mrs. Fieldmouse is accidentally killed by Kestrel, while Sinuous, a male snake, is strangled by a rat. Scarface and Bounder are bitten by Adder and die from her venom.^[244]

In the philosopher Nick Bostrom's 1994 short story "Golden", the main character Albert, an uplifted golden retriever, observes that humans observe nature from an ecologically aesthetic perspective which disregards the suffering of the individuals who inhabit "healthy" ecosystems.^[245] Albert also asserts that it is a taboo in the animal rights movement that the majority of the suffering experienced by animals is due to natural processes and that "[a]ny proposal for remedying this situation is bound to sound utopian, but my dream is that one day the sun will rise on Earth and all sentient creatures will greet the new day with joy".^[246]

The character Lord Vetinari, in Terry Pratchett's Unseen Academicals, in a speech, tells how he once observed a salmon being consumed alive by a mother otter and her children feeding on the salmon's eggs. He sarcastically describes "[m]other and children dining upon mother and children" as one of "nature's wonders", using it as an example of how evil is "built into the very nature of the universe".^[247] This depiction of evil has been described as non-traditional because it expresses horror at the idea that evil has been designed as a feature of the universe.^[248]

Annie Dillard's views on nature, as expressed in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Holy the Firm, deviate from the traditional portrayal of the natural world as peaceful and balanced. Instead, she presents nature as a realm marked by inherent brutality and violence, using vivid imagery to depict scenes of predation, parasitism, and death. Dillard explores the idea that the divine is not separate from this violence but is intertwined with it, proposing an immanent God who is present within the chaos and suffering of the natural world. This perspective challenges the concept of a benevolent deity existing independently of nature's harsh realities, inviting readers to consider the possibility of a divine presence within an indifferent universe. Through this approach, Dillard's work contributes a distinct perspective to American nature writing, blending theological inquiry with reflections on the violence in nature.^[249]

Homer, in the Iliad, employs the simile of a stag who, as a victim, is wounded by a human hunter and is then devoured by jackals, who themselves are frightened away by a scavenging lion.^[250] In the epigram "The Swallow and the Grasshopper", attributed to Euenus, the poet writes of a swallow feeding a grasshopper to its young, remarking that "wilt not quickly cast it loose? for it is not right nor just that singers should perish by singers' mouths."^[251]

Al-Ma'arri wrote of the kindness of giving water to birds and speculated whether there was a future existence where innocent animals would experience happiness to remedy the suffering they experience in this world. In the Luzūmiyyāt, he included a poem addressed to the wolf, who "if he were conscious of his bloodguiltiness, would rather have remained unborn."^[252]

In "On Poetry: A Rhapsody", written in 1733, Jonathan Swift argues that Hobbes proved that all creatures exist in a state of eternal war and uses predation by different animals as evidence of this. He wrote: "A Whale of moderate Size will draw / A Shole of Herrings down his Maw. / A Fox with Geese his Belly crams; / A Wolf destroys a thousand Lambs."^[253] Voltaire makes similar descriptions of predation in his "Poem on the Lisbon Disaster", published in 1756, arguing: "Elements, animals, humans, everything is at war."^[254] Voltaire also asserts that "all animals [are] condemned to live, / All sentient things, born by the same stern law, / Suffer like me, and like me also die."^[255] In William Blake's Vala, or The Four Zoas, the character Enion laments the cruelty of nature,^[256] observing how ravens cry out but do not receive pity, and how sparrows and robins starve to death in the winter. Enion also mourns how wolves and lions reproduce in a state of love, then abandon their young to the wilds and how a spider labours to create a web, awaiting a fly, but then is consumed by a bird.^[257]

Erasmus Darwin in The Temple of Nature, published posthumously in 1803, observes the struggle for existence, describing how different animals feed upon each other. He wrote "The towering eagle, darting from above, / Unfeeling rends the inoffensive dove ... Nor spares, enamour'd of his radiant form, / The hungry nightingale the glowing worm", and how parasitic animals, like botflies, reproduce, their young feeding inside the living bodies of other animals, stating: "Fell Oestrus buries in her rapid course / Her countless brood in stag, or bull, or horse; / Whose hungry larva eats its living way, / Hatch'd by the warmth, and issues into day."^{[258]: 154–155} He also refers to the world as "one great Slaughter-house".^[258]: 159 In a footnote, he speculates whether humans could someday create a food source for predatory animals based on sugar, asserting that, as a result, "food for animals would then become as plentiful as water, and they might live upon the earth without preying on each other, as thick as blades of grass, with no restraint to their numbers but the want of local room".^[258]: 160 The poem has been used as an example of how Erasmus Darwin predicted evolutionary theory.^[259]

Isaac Gompertz, the brother of Lewis Gompertz, in his 1813 poem "To the Thoughtless", criticizes the assertion that human consumption of other animals is justified because it is designed that way by nature, inviting the reader to imagine themselves being predated by an animal and to consider whether they would want to have their life saved, in the same way an animal being preyed upon—such as a fly attacked by a spider—would, despite predation being part of nature-given law.^[260] In the 1818 poem "Epistle to John Hamilton Reynolds", John Keats retells to John Hamilton Reynolds how one evening he was by the ocean, when he saw "Too far into the sea; where every maw / The greater on the less feeds evermore", and observes that there exists an "eternal fierce destruction" at the core of the world: "The Shark at savage prey — the hawk at pounce, — / The gentle Robin, like a Pard or Ounce, / Ravening a worm."^[261] The poem has been cited as an example of Erasmus Darwin's writings on Keats.^[262]

In 1850, Alfred Tennyson published the poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", which contained the expression "Nature, red in tooth and claw"; this phrase has since become commonly used as a shorthand to refer to the extent of suffering in nature.^[263] In his 1855 poem "Maud", Tennyson described nature as irredeemable because of the theft and predation it intrinsically contains: "For nature is one with rapine, a harm no preacher can heal; / The Mayfly is torn by the swallow, the sparrow spear'd by the shrike, / And the whole little wood where I sit is a world of plunder and prey."^[264] Edwin Arnold in The Light of Asia, a narrative poem published in 1879 about the life of Prince Gautama Buddha, describes how originally the prince saw the "peace and plenty" of nature but upon closer inspection observed: "Life living upon death. So the fair show / Veiled one vast, savage, grim conspiracy / Of mutual murder, from the worm to man."^[265] It has been asserted that the Darwinian struggle depicted in the poem comes more from Arnold than Buddhist tradition.^[266]

American poet Robinson Jeffers' poems contain depictions of violence in nature, such as "The Bloody Sire": "What but the wolf's tooth whittled so fine / The fleet limbs of the antelope? / What but fear winged the birds, and hunger / Jewelled with such eyes the great goshawk's head? / Violence has been the sire of all the world's values."^[267] In his poem "Hurt Hawks", the narrator describes watching a once-strong and vigorous hawk that has been injured and now faces the grim fate of dying from starvation.^[268]

1. ^ ^{a b c} Tomasik, Brian (November 2, 2015). "The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 133–152. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-toma. ISSN 2280-9643.
2. ^ ^{a b c} Faria, Catia; Paez, Eze (May 11, 2015). "Animals in Need: the Problem of Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1): 7–13. ISSN 2280-9643.
3. ^ ^{a b c} Dawkins, Richard (1995). "Chapter 4: God's Utility Function". River Out of Eden. London: Orion Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-297-81540-2.
4. ^ ^{a b c d e f g h i j} Horta, Oscar (2010). "Debunking the Idyllic View of Natural Processes: Population Dynamics and Suffering in the Wild" (PDF). Télos. 17 (1): 73–88.
5. ^ ^{a b c} Iglesias, Alejandro Villamor (2018). "The overwhelming prevalence of suffering in Nature". Revista de Bioética y Derecho (42): 181–195.
6. ^ ^{a b c} Horta, Oscar (November 25, 2014). "Egalitarianism and Animals". Between the Species. 19 (1).
7. ^ For discussion of wild animal suffering and its relation to the problem of evil see:
   • Darwin, Charles (September 1993). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 90. ISBN 978-0393310696.
   • Lewis, C. S. (2015). The Problem of Pain. HarperOne. ISBN 9780060652968.
   • Murray, Michael (April 30, 2011). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199596324.
   • Gould, Stephen (February 1982). "Nonmoral Nature" (PDF). Natural History. 91 (2): 19–26. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
   • McMahan, Jeff (2013). "The Moral Problem of Predation" (PDF). In Chignell, Andrew; Cuneo, Terence; Halteman, Matt (eds.). Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415806831. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
8. ^ For academic discussion of wild animal suffering and its alleviation from a secular standpoint see:
   • McMahan, Jeff (2013). "The Moral Problem of Predation" (PDF). In Chignell, Andrew; Cuneo, Terence; Halteman, Matt (eds.). Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415806831. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
   • Ng, Yew-Kwang (1995). "Towards Welfare Biology: Evolutionary Economics of Animal Consciousness and Suffering" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy. 10 (3): 255–285. doi:10.1007/BF00852469. S2CID 59407458. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 5, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
   • Dorado, Daniel (2015). "Ethical Interventions in the Wild. An Annotated Bibliography". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 219–238. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-dora. Retrieved April 21, 2016.
   • Moen, Ole Martin (2016). "The Ethics of Wild Animal Suffering" (PDF). Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics. 10: 1–14. doi:10.5324/eip.v10i1.1972. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Horta, Oscar (2015). "The Problem of Evil in Nature: Evolutionary Bases of the Prevalence of Disvalue". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1): 17–32. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-001-hort. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Torres, Mikel (2015). "The Case for Intervention in Nature on Behalf of Animals: A Critical Review of the Main Arguments against Intervention". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1): 33–49. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-001-torr. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Cunha, Luciano Carlos (2015). "If Natural Entities Have Intrinsic Value, Should We Then Abstain from Helping Animals Who Are Victims of Natural Processes?". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1): 51–63. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-001-cunh. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Tomasik, Brian (2015). "The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 133–152. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-toma. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Pearce, David (2015). "A Welfare State For Elephants? A Case Study of Compassionate Stewardship". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 153–164. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-pear. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Paez, Eze (2015). "Refusing Help and Inflicting Harm. A Critique of the Environmentalist View". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 165–178. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-paez. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Sözmen, Beril (2015). "Relations and Moral Obligations towards Other Animals". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 179–193. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-sozm. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
   • Faria, Catia (2016). Animal Ethics Goes Wild: The Problem of Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature (Ph.D.). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
9. ^ ^{a b} Delon, Nicolas; Purves, Duncan (April 1, 2018). "Wild Animal Suffering is Intractable". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 31 (2): 239–260. Bibcode:2018JAEE...31..239D. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9722-y. ISSN 1573-322X. S2CID 158886418.
10. ^ Callicott, J. Baird (November 1, 1980). "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19802424. S2CID 41646945. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 20, 2019. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
11. ^ ^{a b c} Simmons, Aaron (2009). "Animals, Predators, The Right to Life and The Duty to Save Lives". Ethics & the Environment. 14 (1): 15–27. doi:10.2979/ete.2009.14.1.15. S2CID 89542818.
12. ^ ^{a b c} Sözmen, Beril İdemen (November 1, 2013). "Harm in the Wild: Facing Non-Human Suffering in Nature" (PDF). Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 16 (5): 1075–1088. doi:10.1007/s10677-013-9416-5. ISSN 1572-8447. S2CID 143964923.
13. ^ ^{a b} Regan, Tom (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 357. ISBN 978-0-520-24386-6.
14. ^ ^{a b} Kapembwa, Julius (2017). Wildlife rights and human obligations (PhD thesis). University of Reading. p. 50
15. ^ ^{a b c d} Horta, Oscar (January 5, 2015). "Why the Situation of Animals in the Wild Should Concern Us". Animal Charity Evaluators. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
16. ^ ^{a b c} Sebo, Jeff (January 15, 2020). "All we owe to animals". Aeon. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
17. ^ "Helping animals in the wild". Animal Ethics. August 28, 2013. Retrieved August 17, 2019.
18. ^ ^{a b} Vinding, Magnus (2020). "Reducing Extreme Suffering for Non-Human Animals: Enhancement vs. Smaller Future Populations?". Between the Species. 23 (1).
19. ^ Wiblin, Robert; Harris, Kieran (August 15, 2019). "Animals in the wild often suffer a great deal. What, if anything, should we do about that?". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
20. ^ ^{a b c d} Ray, Georgia (November 22, 2017). "Parasite Load and Disease in Wild Animals". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on June 12, 2021. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
21. ^ Calvete, C.; Estrada, R.; Villafuerte, R.; Osácar, J. J.; Lucientes, J. (2002). "Epidemiology of viral haemorrhagic disease and myxomatosis in a free-living population of wild rabbits". Veterinary Record. 150 (25): 776–782. doi:10.1136/vr.150.25.776. ISSN 2042-7670. PMID 12135072. S2CID 7084943.
22. ^ Knight, Kelli; Wick, Peach van (2019), "Medical and Surgical Management of Deer and Relatives", Medical Management of Wildlife Species, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 259–270, doi:10.1002/9781119036708.ch20, ISBN 978-1-119-03670-8, S2CID 208578632, retrieved March 24, 2021
23. ^ Botzler, Richard G.; Brown, Richard N. (2014). Foundations of Wildlife Diseases. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 378. ISBN 978-0-520-27609-3.
24. ^ Beldomenico, Pablo M; Telfer, Sandra; Gebert, Stephanie; Lukomski, Lukasz; Bennett, Malcolm; Begon, Michael (August 7, 2008). "Poor condition and infection: a vicious circle in natural populations". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275 (1644): 1753–1759. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0147. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 2453294. PMID 18448414.
25. ^ Brannelly, Laura A.; Webb, Rebecca; Skerratt, Lee F.; Berger, Lee (2016). "Amphibians with infectious disease increase their reproductive effort: evidence for the terminal investment hypothesis". Open Biology. 6 (6): 150251. doi:10.1098/rsob.150251. PMC 4929933. PMID 27358291.
26. ^ "Physical injuries in wild animals". Animal Ethics. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
27. ^ Scott, Marilyn E. (1988). "The Impact of Infection and Disease on Animal Populations: Implications for Conservation Biology". Conservation Biology. 2 (1): 40–56. Bibcode:1988ConBi...2...40S. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1988.tb00334.x. ISSN 1523-1739.
28. ^ Goodman, Brett A.; Johnson, Pieter T. J. (May 25, 2011). "Disease and the Extended Phenotype: Parasites Control Host Performance and Survival through Induced Changes in Body Plan". PLOS ONE. 6 (5): e20193. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...620193G. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020193. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3102088. PMID 21633498.
29. ^ Libersat, Frederic; Kaiser, Maayan; Emanuel, Stav (2018). "Mind Control: How Parasites Manipulate Cognitive Functions in Their Insect Hosts". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 572. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00572. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5938628. PMID 29765342.
30. ^ Robar, Nicholas; Burness, Gary; Murray, Dennis L. (2010). "Tropics, trophics and taxonomy: the determinants of parasite-associated host mortality". Oikos. 119 (8): 1273–1280. Bibcode:2010Oikos.119.1273R. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18292.x. ISSN 1600-0706.
31. ^ ^{a b c} "Predators, parasites and parasitoids". The Australian Museum. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
32. ^ "Parasitoids". Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
33. ^ Fiske, W. F. (February 1, 1910). "Superparasitism: an Important Factor in the Natural Control of Insects1". Journal of Economic Entomology. 3 (1): 88–97. doi:10.1093/jee/3.1.88. ISSN 0022-0493.
34. ^ Sekar, Sandhya (May 22, 2015). "Parasitoid wasps may be the most diverse animal group". BBC Earth. Retrieved March 24, 2021.
35. ^ "Malnutrition and Starvation". Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
36. ^ Faria, Catia (2016). Animal Ethics Goes Wild: The Problem of Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature (PDF) (PhD thesis). Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
37. ^ China, Victor; Holzman, Roi (June 3, 2014). "Hydrodynamic starvation in first-feeding larval fishes". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (22): 8083–8088. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.8083C. doi:10.1073/pnas.1323205111. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4050599. PMID 24843180.
38. ^ "Malnutrition, hunger and thirst in wild animals". Animal Ethics. Retrieved March 26, 2021.
39. ^ Russo, Catherine J. M.; Ohmer, Michel E. B.; Cramp, Rebecca L.; Franklin, Craig E. (May 1, 2018). "A pathogenic skin fungus and sloughing exacerbate cutaneous water loss in amphibians". Journal of Experimental Biology. 221 (9). Bibcode:2018JExpB.221B7445R. doi:10.1242/jeb.167445. ISSN 0022-0949. PMID 29752415.
40. ^ ^{a b} Weidman, T.; Litvaitis, J. A. (July 1, 2011). "Can supplemental food increase winter survival of a threatened cottontail rabbit?". Biological Conservation. 144 (7): 2054–2058. Bibcode:2011BCons.144.2054W. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.027. ISSN 0006-3207.
41. ^ ^{a b c d} "Weather conditions and nonhuman animals". Animal Ethics. Retrieved March 27, 2021.
42. ^ Amos, Jonathan (April 24, 2019). "Antarctica: Thousands of emperor penguin chicks wiped out". BBC News. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
43. ^ Sharman, Jon (August 20, 2019). "Thousands of birds killed after freak weather event leaves them with smashed skulls and internal damage". The Independent. Retrieved April 7, 2021.
44. ^ Smith, Allen G.; Webster, Harry R. (1955). "Effects of Hail Storms on Waterfowl Populations in Alberta, Canada: 1953". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 19 (3): 368–374. Bibcode:1955JWMan..19..368S. doi:10.2307/3797388. ISSN 0022-541X. JSTOR 3797388.
45. ^ Elbaum, Rachel; Eckardt, Andy (August 16, 2018). "Wildlife, animals suffer in Europe's summer of extreme heat". NBC News. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
46. ^ Sanderson, Katharine (January 4, 2007). "Hot waters make it hard for fish to breathe". Nature: news070101–5. doi:10.1038/news070101-5. ISSN 0028-0836. S2CID 129050854.
47. ^ "With Temperatures Rising, Can Animals Survive the Heat Stress?". Yale E360. Retrieved April 5, 2021.
48. ^ "Wildlife mass mortality events associated with harsh winter weather". The Veterinary Record. 182 (22): 628–629. June 2, 2018. doi:10.1136/vr.k2413. ISSN 2042-7670. PMID 29858315. S2CID 49335517.
49. ^ Rödel, H. G.; Bora, A.; Kaetzke, P.; Khaschei, M.; Hutzelmeyer, H.; von Holst, D. (August 2004). "Over-winter survival in subadult European rabbits: weather effects, density dependence, and the impact of individual characteristics". Oecologia. 140 (4): 566–576. Bibcode:2004Oecol.140..566R. doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1616-1. ISSN 0029-8549. PMID 15309616. S2CID 40720075.
50. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Olvera2020 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
51. ^ Olvera, Lola (March 25, 2020). "When Natural Disaster Strikes, Wildlife Pays A Heavy Price". Sentient Media. Retrieved March 28, 2021.
52. ^ Gutiérrez, Jara; De Miguel, Javier (June 26, 2021). "Fires in nature: a review of the challenges for wild animals". European Journal of Ecology. 7 (1). doi:10.17161/eurojecol.v7i1.14643. ISSN 1339-8474.
53. ^ Minelli, Alessandro (2008). "Predation". In Jørgensen, Sven Erik; Fath, Brian D. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Ecology. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-093116-6. OCLC 527382954.
54. ^ ^{a b} McMahan, Jeff (September 19, 2010). "The Meat Eaters". Opinionator. Retrieved March 12, 2021.
55. ^ "Antagonism in nature: Interspecific conflict". Animal Ethics. Retrieved March 28, 2021.
56. ^ Harris, J. B.; Goonetilleke, A. (September 1, 2004). "Animal poisons and the nervous system: what the neurologist needs to know". Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 75 (suppl 3): iii40 – iii46. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2004.045724. ISSN 0022-3050. PMC 1765666. PMID 15316044.
57. ^ "Antagonism in nature: Intraspecific fights". Animal Ethics. Retrieved March 28, 2021.
58. ^ Wilcox, Christie (December 4, 2011). "Bambi or Bessie: Are wild animals happier?". Scientific American. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
59. ^ Povinelli, Daniel J. (November 1, 2020). "Can Comparative Psychology Crack its Toughest Nut?" (PDF). Animal Behavior and Cognition. 7 (4): 589–652. doi:10.26451/abc.07.04.09.2020.
60. ^ Zanette, Liana Y.; Clinchy, Michael (May 6, 2019). "Ecology of fear". Current Biology. 29 (9): R309 – R313. Bibcode:2019CBio...29.R309Z. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.042. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 31063718. S2CID 145049061.
61. ^ Robbins, Jim (April 11, 2017). "The Fear Factor: How the Peril of Predators Can Transform a Landscape". Yale E360. Retrieved August 1, 2020.
62. ^ Zanette, Liana Y.; Hobbs, Emma C.; Witterick, Lauren E.; MacDougall-Shackleton, Scott A.; Clinchy, Michael (August 7, 2019). "Predator-induced fear causes PTSD-like changes in the brains and behaviour of wild animals". Scientific Reports. 9 (1): 11474. Bibcode:2019NatSR...911474Z. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47684-6. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 6685979. PMID 31391473.
63. ^ Allan, Bridie J. M. (January 1, 2020). "Scared to death? the killer effect of predation risk in snowshoe hares". Conservation Physiology. 7 (1): coz029. doi:10.1093/conphys/coz029. PMC 6572791. PMID 31217976.
64. ^ Ray, Georgia (June 29, 2017). "How Many Wild Animals Are There?". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on April 13, 2021. Retrieved March 10, 2021.
65. ^ Bar-On, Yinon M.; Phillips, Rob; Milo, Ron (June 19, 2018). "Supplementary Information Appendix" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 115 (25): 6506–6511. Bibcode:2018PNAS..115.6506B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 6016768. PMID 29784790.
66. ^ Matheny, Gaverick; Chan, Kai M. A. (December 2005). "Human Diets and Animal Welfare: the Illogic of the Larder". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 18 (6): 579–594. Bibcode:2005JAEE...18..579M. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-1805-x. ISSN 1187-7863. S2CID 154198751.
67. ^ Klein, Alice (September 19, 2022). "There are 20,000,000,000,000,000 ants crawling all over Earth". New Scientist. Retrieved September 26, 2022.
68. ^ Paez, Eze (January 1, 2020). "Preserving nature for the benefit of all sentient individuals". Animal Sentience. 4 (27). doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1551. hdl:10230/57029. ISSN 2377-7478.
69. ^ Darwin, Charles (September 1993). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 90. ISBN 978-0393310696.
70. ^ Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. London: Orion Publishing Group. pp. 131–132. ISBN 978-0-297-81540-2.
71. ^ Simpson, Keith (1979). Schultz, Martin (ed.). The Mysteries of Life & Death: An Illustrated Investigation into the Incredible World of Death. London: Salamander Books. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-86101-036-3.
72. ^ ^{a b c} Ng, Yew-Kwang (1995). "Towards Welfare Biology: Evolutionary Economics of Animal Consciousness and Suffering" (PDF). Biology and Philosophy. 10 (3): 255–285. doi:10.1007/BF00852469. S2CID 59407458. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 5, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
73. ^ ^{a b c} Sagoff, Mark (1984). "Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 22 (2): 297–307. doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1936.
74. ^ Groff, Zach; Ng, Yew-Kwang (June 18, 2019). "Does suffering dominate enjoyment in the animal kingdom? An update to welfare biology". Biology & Philosophy. 34 (4): 40. doi:10.1007/s10539-019-9692-0. ISSN 1572-8404. S2CID 196683974.
75. ^ Zuiddam, Benno (October 10, 2024). "2nd Century Church Fathers: God will make lions vegetarian again". Creation. 36 (3): 46–47.
76. ^ Leonardo da Vinci (January 1, 2004). The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci — Complete. Translated by Richter, Jean Paul. folio 1219 – via Project Gutenberg.
77. ^ Hume, David (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (2nd ed.). London. p. 176 – via Internet Archive.
78. ^ ^{a b c} Paley, William (1879) [1802]. Paxton, James; Ware, John (eds.). Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. New York: Sheldon & Company.
79. ^ ^{a b} Gregory, T. Ryan (December 2009). "The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley's Natural Theology (1802)". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 2 (4): 602–611. doi:10.1007/s12052-009-0184-6. ISSN 1936-6434.
80. ^ Murray, Michael J. (2008). Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923727-2. OCLC 209815655.
81. ^ Hoggard Creegan, Nicola (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 44–55. ISBN 978-0-19-993185-9.
82. ^ Evans, Edward Payson (September 1894). "Ethical Relations Between Man and Beast". Popular Science Monthly. 45: 646.
83. ^ Schneider, John R. (2020). "Facing the Darwinian Problem of Evil". Animal Suffering and the Darwinian Problem of Evil (1 ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–47. doi:10.1017/9781108767439.003. ISBN 978-1-108-76743-9. S2CID 238121342.
84. ^ Darwin, Charles (May 22, 1860). "To Asa Gray". Letter to Asa Gray. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
85. ^ Darwin, Charles (1958). Barlow, Nora (ed.). The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. London: Collins. p. 90.
86. ^ Mousavirad, Seyyed Jaaber (July 2, 2022). "Theory of Compensation and Problem of Evil; a New Defense". European Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 14 (2). doi:10.24204/ejpr.2022.3357. ISSN 1689-8311.
87. ^ ^{a b c} Moen, Ole Martin (May 9, 2016). "The ethics of wild animal suffering". Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics. 10 (1): 91–104. doi:10.5324/eip.v10i1.1972. ISSN 1890-4009.
88. ^ Schmithausen, Lambert (1997). "The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ethics". Journal of Buddhist Ethics.
89. ^ James, Simon P. (February 1, 2006). "Buddhism and the Ethics of Species Conservation". Environmental Values. 15 (1): 85–97. Bibcode:2006EnvV...15...85J. doi:10.3197/096327106776678942.
90. ^ ^{a b} Cooper, David E.; James, Simon P. (2005). Buddhism, Virtue and Environment. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. pp. 119-120. ISBN 978-1-351-95431-0.
91. ^ Stuart, Daniel M. (September 2019). "Becoming Animal: Karma and the Animal Realm Envisioned through an Early Yogācāra Lens". Religions. 10 (6): 363. doi:10.3390/rel10060363. ISSN 2077-1444.
92. ^ Shantideva (2006). The Way of the Bodhisattva (Revised ed.). Shambhala. p. 165. ISBN 978-1-59030-388-7.
93. ^ Rinpoche, Patrul (1998). The Words of My Perfect Teacher (Revised ed.). Shambhala. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-1-57062-412-4.
94. ^ Baker, Calvin (January 2024). "Three Revisionary Implications of Buddhist Animal Ethics". Philosophy East and West. doi:10.1353/pew.0.a917041. ISSN 1529-1898.
95. ^ Kemmerer, Lisa (April 2009). "Hindu Ethics and Nonhuman Animals". Swadharam Journal. 3: 32–45.
96. ^ Thornhill, Richard; Morris, Michael (January 1, 2006). "Animal Liberationist Responses to Non-Anthropogenic Animal Suffering" (PDF). Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology. 10 (3): 355–379. doi:10.1163/156853506778942077. ISSN 1363-5247.
97. ^ ^{a b} Buffon, Georges Louis Leclerc (1807). Natural History: Containing a Theory of the Earth, a General History of Man, of the Brute Creation, and of Vegetables, Minerals, &c. &c. &c. London: H. D. Symonds.
98. ^ Herder, Johann Gottfried (1801). "The Animal Kingdom: In Relation to the History of Man". The Union Magazine, and Imperial Register. 2: 172.
99. ^ ^{a b c} Gompertz, Lewis (1992) [1824]. Singer, Peter (ed.). Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes. Fontwell: Centaur Press.
100. ^ Gompertz, Lewis (1852). Fragments in Defence of Animals, and Essays on Morals, Soul, and Future State. London: W. Horsell. p. 18.
101. ^ Pedatella, Stefan (March 1, 2009). "Images of Animal Predation in Giacomo Leopardi's Dialogo della Natura e di un Islandese". Italian Culture. 27 (1): 25–42. doi:10.1179/155909009X401665. ISSN 0161-4622. S2CID 159793645.
102. ^ Leopardi, Giacomo (2013). "4511". Zibaldone: The Notebooks of Leopardi. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-196200-9. Indeed, precisely the order that exists in the world, and seeing that evil is in this order, that such order cannot exist without evil, makes the existence of the latter inconceivable. Animals destined for the nourishment of other species. The inborn envy and hatred of living beings toward their fellows
103. ^ Schopenhauer, Arthur (2000). Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 292. ISBN 9780199242214.
104. ^ Mill, John Stuart (1874). "Nature". Three Essays on Religion. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. pp. 28, 32, 65.
105. ^ Salt, Henry Stephens; Leffingwell, Albert (1894). "The Case of Wild Animals". Animals' Rights: Considered in Relation to Social Progress. New York, London: Macmillan & Co. pp. 36–42.
106. ^ ^{a b c d} Moore, J. Howard (1899). Better-World Philosophy: A Sociological Synthesis. Chicago: The Ward Waugh Company – via Internet Archive.
107. ^ Moore, J. Howard (1906). The Universal Kinship. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co. pp. 249–250.
108. ^ ^{a b} Moore, J. Howard (1912). Ethics and Education. London: G. Bell & Sons.
109. ^ Skutch, Alexander F. (1952). "Which Shall We Protect? Thoughts on the Ethics of the Treatment of Free Life" (PDF). The Aryan Path. 23: 382–386.
110. ^ ^{a b} Singer, Peter (June 14, 1973). "Food for Thought: David Rosinger, reply by Peter Singer". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved February 23, 2015.
111. ^ Clark, Stephen R. L. (August 29, 2008) [1979]. "The Rights of Wild things". Inquiry. 22 (1–4): 171–188. doi:10.1080/00201747908601871.
112. ^ Callicott, J. Baird (November 1, 1980). "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19802424. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
113. ^ "30 years since the publication of Morals, reason and animals". Animal Ethics. July 25, 2017. Retrieved September 9, 2021.
114. ^ Naess, Arne (1991). "Should We Try to Relieve Clear Cases of Suffering in Nature?" (PDF). Pan Ecology. 6: 1–5. Retrieved November 20, 2016.
115. ^ Olivier, David (June 1, 1993). "Pourquoi je ne suis pas écologiste" [Why I am not an environmentalist]. Les Cahiers antispécistes (in French). Retrieved April 11, 2020.
116. ^ Tomasik, Brian (July 2009). "The Importance of Wild-Animal Suffering". Center on Long-Term Risk. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
117. ^ Faria, Catia; Paez, Eze, eds. (2015). "Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature: Part I". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (1). Retrieved June 18, 2022 – via ledonline.it.
118. ^ Faria, Catia; Paez, Eze, eds. (2015). "Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature: Part II". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2). Retrieved September 26, 2022 – via ledonline.it.
119. ^ Allegri, Francesco, ed. (2022). "Human Beings' Moral Relations with Other Animals and the Natural Environment". Relations. 10 (2). ISSN 2280-9643 – via ledonline.it.
120. ^ Faria, Catia (May 2015). "Making a Difference on Behalf of Animals Living in the Wild: Interview with Jeff McMahan" (PDF). Relations. 3 (1): 81–84. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-001-fari. ISSN 2283-3196.
121. ^ ^{a b c} McMahan, Jeff (September 28, 2010). "Predators: A Response". The New York Times. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
122. ^ ^{a b} Reese, Jacy (December 14, 2015). "Wild animals endure illness, injury, and starvation. We should help". Vox. Retrieved April 17, 2016.
123. ^ Reese, Jacy (2018). "The Expanding Moral Circle, Revisited". The End of Animal Farming: How Scientists, Entrepreneurs, and Activists Are Building an Animal-Free Food System. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-1945-0.
124. ^ Matthews, Dylan (April 12, 2021). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
125. ^ ^{a b c} Nadler, Steven (August 10, 2018). "We have an ethical obligation to relieve individual animal suffering". Aeon. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
126. ^ "First dissertation on helping animals in the wild". Center for Animal Ethics (UPF). March 19, 2016. Retrieved February 13, 2021.
127. ^ "Animal Ethics in the Wild". Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
128. ^ "Kyle Johannsen, 'Wild Animal Ethics: The Moral and The Moral and Political Problem of Wild Animal Suffering'". New Books Network. January 11, 2021. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
129. ^ "Symposium on Kyle Johannsen's Wild Animal Ethics". APPLE. January 21, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2021.
130. ^ Horta, Oscar (2022), "In defense of animals!", Making a Stand for Animals, pp. 135–165, doi:10.4324/9781003285922-7, ISBN 9781003285922, retrieved July 10, 2022
131. ^ "Positive Duties to Wild Animals". Routledge & CRC Press. Retrieved July 10, 2024.
132. ^ "Announcing Wild Animal Initiative". Wild Animal Initiative. January 19, 2019. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
133. ^ "Why wild animal suffering matters". Animal Ethics. 2017. Retrieved July 7, 2021.
134. ^ Schukraft, Jason (November 6, 2019). "Opinion: estimating invertebrate sentience". Rethink Priorities. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
135. ^ Schukraft, Jason (July 9, 2019). "Invertebrate welfare cause profile". Rethink Priorities. Retrieved June 18, 2022.
136. ^ Canon, Gabrielle (September 10, 2021). "How a Tahoe refuge saved owls, coyotes and raccoons from wildfire". The Guardian. Retrieved September 10, 2021.
137. ^ "NYU Launches Wild Animal Welfare Program". NYU. September 28, 2022. Retrieved April 23, 2023.
138. ^ Belshaw, Christopher (2001). Environmental Philosophy. McGill-Queen's Press. p. xii. ISBN 978-1-902683-21-8.
139. ^ Paez, Eze (November 2, 2015). "Refusing Help and Inflicting Harm. A Critique of the Environmentalist View". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 165–178. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-paez. ISSN 2280-9643.
140. ^ Faria, Catia; Paez, Eze (July 1, 2019). "It's Splitsville: Why Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Are Incompatible". American Behavioral Scientist. 63 (8): 1047–1060. doi:10.1177/0002764219830467. ISSN 0002-7642. S2CID 150854523.
141. ^ ^{a b} McMahan, Jeff (2013). "The Moral Problem of Predation" (PDF). In Chignell, Andrew; Cuneo, Terence; Halteman, Matt (eds.). Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-80683-1. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 11, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
142. ^ ^{a b c} Hettinger, Ned (1994). "Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 16 (1): 3–20. Bibcode:1994EnEth..16....3H. doi:10.5840/enviroethics199416138. S2CID 18428255. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 25, 2019.
143. ^ Moen, Ole Martin (2016). "The Ethics of Wild Animal Suffering" (PDF). Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics. 10: 1–14. doi:10.5324/eip.v10i1.1972. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
144. ^ ^{a b c} Horta, Oscar (2018). "Concern for Wild Animal Suffering and Environmental Ethics: What Are the Limits of the Disagreement". Les Ateliers de l'Éthique. 13 (1): 85–100. doi:10.7202/1055119ar. hdl:10347/20000. ISSN 1718-9977.
145. ^ Keulartz, Jozef (October 1, 2016). "Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 29 (5): 813–834. Bibcode:2016JAEE...29..813K. doi:10.1007/s10806-016-9637-4. hdl:2066/161423. ISSN 1573-322X.
146. ^ Raterman, Ty (Winter 2008). "An Environmentalist's Lament on Predation" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 30 (4): 417–434. Bibcode:2008EnEth..30..417R. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200830443.
147. ^ Kapembwa, Julius (October 2018). "Predation Catch-22: Disentangling the Rights of Prey, Predators, and Rescuers". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 31 (5): 527–542. Bibcode:2018JAEE...31..527K. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9743-6. ISSN 1187-7863. S2CID 158949810.
148. ^ Ebert, Rainer (2012). "Innocent Threats and the Moral Problem of Carnivorous Animals". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 29 (2): 146–159. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00561.x.
149. ^ Trindade, Gabriel Garmendia da; Woodhall, Andrew, eds. (2020). Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Vernon Press. p. 244. ISBN 978-1-62273-975-2.
150. ^ Everett, Jennifer (2001). "Environmental Ethics, Animal Welfarism, and the Problem of Predation: A Bambi Lover's Respect for Nature". Ethics & the Environment. 6 (1): 42–67. ISSN 1085-6633. JSTOR 40339003.
151. ^ ^{a b} Aaltola, Elisa (February 2010). "Animal Ethics and the Argument from Absurdity". Environmental Values. 19 (1): 79–98. Bibcode:2010EnvV...19...79A. doi:10.3197/096327110X485392. S2CID 144779771.
152. ^ ^{a b} Ryf, Philipp (September 1, 2016). Environmental Ethics: The Case of Wild Animals (Master's thesis). University of Basel.
153. ^ Shooster, Jay (July 11, 2017). "Legal Personhood and the Positive Rights of Wild Animals". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on December 4, 2020. Retrieved March 9, 2021.
154. ^ ^{a b} Cowen, Tyler (2003). "Policing Nature" (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 25 (2): 169–182. Bibcode:2003EnEth..25..169C. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200325231. S2CID 16279915. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 29, 2019.
155. ^ McShane, Katie (2018). "Why Animal Welfare Is Not Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, or Human Welfare: Toward a More Complete Assessment of Climate Impacts" (PDF). Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum. 13 (1): 43–64. doi:10.7202/1055117ar. ISSN 1718-9977.
156. ^ ^{a b} Scholtz, Werner (April 2, 2024). "International (Wild) Animal Rights and Biodiversity: Resolving Conflicts Between Holism And Individualism". Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy. 27 (2): 47–73. doi:10.1080/13880292.2024.2428003. ISSN 1388-0292.
157. ^ ^{a b} Comstock, Gary (2016). "Two Views of Animals in Environmental Ethics" (PDF). In Borchert (ed.). Philosophy: Environmental Ethics (Donald M. ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale. pp. 151–183.
158. ^ Hopster, Jeroen (December 1, 2019). "The Speciesism Debate: Intuition, Method, and Empirical Advances". Animals. 9 (12): 1054. doi:10.3390/ani9121054. ISSN 2076-2615. PMC 6940905. PMID 31805715. There are various definitions of speciesism in circulation in the academic literature and beyond. Some authors treat speciesism as an unjustified position by definition. This is problematic, however, since the defensibility of speciesism is subject to substantive debate. A more fruitful approach is to distinguish the descriptive concept of speciesism from its normative evaluation. Here, and in what follows, I will adopt Singer's definition, according to which speciesism involves the preferential consideration of the interests of members of one's own species.
159. ^ Mayerfeld, Jamie (1999). Suffering and Moral Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-515495-5.
160. ^ Bruers, Stijn (October 22, 2020). "Speciesism, Arbitrariness and Moral Illusions". Philosophia. 49 (3): 957–975. doi:10.1007/s11406-020-00282-7. ISSN 0048-3893. S2CID 226346638.
161. ^ Muraille, Eric (July 23, 2018). "Debate: Could anti-speciesism and veganism form the basis for a rational society?". The Conversation. Retrieved April 2, 2021.
162. ^ ^{a b} Horta, Oscar (July 5, 2016). "Changing attitudes towards animals in the wild and speciesism". Animal Sentience. 1 (7). doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1109. ISSN 2377-7478.
163. ^ Monbiot, George (February 19, 2020). "I shot a deer – and I still believe it was the ethical thing to do". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved July 2, 2025.
164. ^ ^{a b} Zhang, Sarah (May 26, 2020). "America's Never-Ending Battle Against Flesh-Eating Worms". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on March 7, 2025. Retrieved March 13, 2025.
165. ^ ^{a b} Nussbaum, Martha C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04157-8. OCLC 434003841.
166. ^ ^{a b} Faria, Catia (May 2, 2024), "Wild Animal Ethics", The Routledge Companion to Gender and Animals (1 ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 255–263, doi:10.4324/9781003273400-19, ISBN 978-1-003-27340-0, retrieved October 10, 2024
167. ^ Ruiz Carreras, María (November 4, 2016). ""La lucha por la igualdad y la justicia es necesariamente feminista y antiespecista"" [The fight for equality and justice is necessarily feminist and antispeciesist]. Diagonal (in Spanish). Retrieved February 13, 2021.
168. ^ Singer, Peter (2014). The Point of View of The Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 346. ISBN 978-0199603695.
169. ^ Horta, Oscar (2017). "Animal Suffering in the Wild". Environmental Ethics. 39 (3): 261–279. doi:10.5840/enviroethics201739320.
170. ^ Verchot, Manon. "Meet the people who want to turn predators into herbivores". TreeHugger. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
171. ^ Rolston III, Holmes (1988). Environmental Ethics: Duties To and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 9780877225010.
172. ^ Moriarty, Paul; Mark Woods (1997). "Hunting ≠ Predation". Environmental Ethics. 19 (4): 391–404. Bibcode:1997EnEth..19..391M. doi:10.5840/enviroethics19971945.
173. ^ "Yves Bonnardel: l'antispéciste qui n'aimait pas la nature" [Yves Bonnardel: the anti-speciesist who did not like nature]. Usbek&Rica (in French). August 22, 2016. Retrieved July 26, 2020.
174. ^ Nelson, Michael P.; Vucetich, John A. (February 1, 2013), "Wilderness, Value of" (PDF), in Lafollette, Hugh (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. wbiee645, doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee645, ISBN 978-1-4051-8641-4, retrieved July 16, 2022
175. ^ Duclos, Joshua (2018). Value, morality, and wilderness (Thesis). Boston University.
176. ^ Walker, Jack (June 2022). "Born to be Wild? On "Wildness" Objections to Preventing Wild Animal Suffering" (PDF). Aporia. 32 (1).
177. ^ Duclos, Joshua S. (2022). Wilderness, Morality, and Value. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-6669-0136-8. OCLC 1330426290.
178. ^ Fischer, Bob (January 1, 2018). "Individuals in the wild". Animal Sentience. 3 (23). doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1382. ISSN 2377-7478.
179. ^ Wilson, Scott D. (2011). "Animal Ethics in Context by Palmer, Claire". Ethics 121 (4): 824–8. doi:10.1086/660788.
180. ^ Hettinger, Ned (2018). "Naturalness, Wild-animal Suffering, and Palmer on Laissez-faire". Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum. 13 (1): 65–84. doi:10.7202/1055118ar. ISSN 1718-9977.
181. ^ Faria, Catia (December 21, 2014). "Should we intervene in nature to help animals?". Practical Ethics. Retrieved March 13, 2021.
182. ^ Sapontzis, Steve (March 18, 2011). "Predation". Ethics and Animals. 5 (2). doi:10.15368/ea.1984v5n2.1. ISSN 0197-9094.
183. ^ Ladwig, Bernd (2015). "Against Wild Animal Sovereignty: An Interest-based Critique of Zoopolis". Journal of Political Philosophy. 23 (3): 282–301. doi:10.1111/jopp.12068. ISSN 1467-9760.
184. ^ Bailey, Christiane (2014). "Le double sens de la communauté morale: la considérabilité morale et l'agentivité morale des autres animaux" [The double meaning of moral community: moral consideration and the moral agency of other animals]. Les ateliers de l'éthique / The Ethics Forum (in French). 9 (3): 31–67. doi:10.7202/1029059ar. ISSN 1718-9977.
185. ^ Horta, Oscar (2013). "Zoopolis, interventions and the State of Nature" (PDF). Law, Ethics and Philosophy: 113–125. ISSN 2341-1465.
186. ^ Reus, Estiva (2018). "Le lourd fardeau de l'être humain" [The Heavy Burden of Human Being]. Éliminer les animaux pour leur bien: promenade chez les réducteurs de la souffrance dans la nature [Eliminate animals for their good: walk among the reducers of suffering in nature] (in French). Vol. 41. Les Cahiers antispécistes.
187. ^ ^{a b} Lepeltier, Thomas (November 7, 2018). "Se soucier des animaux sauvages" [Caring about wild animals]. L'Amorce (in French). Retrieved March 12, 2021.
188. ^ Davidow, Ben (November 11, 2013). "Why Most People Don't Care About Wild-Animal Suffering". Essays on Reducing Suffering. Retrieved January 31, 2025.
189. ^ Vinding, Magnus (July 2, 2020). "Ten Biases Against Prioritizing Wild-Animal Suffering". Magnus Vinding. Retrieved January 31, 2025.
190. ^ Bruers, Stijn (July 20, 2016). "Moral illusions and wild animal suffering neglect". Stijn Bruers, the rational ethicist. Retrieved January 31, 2025.
191. ^ ^{a b} Brennan, Ozy (December 20, 2018). "Wildlife Contraception". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on March 21, 2021. Retrieved October 25, 2019.
192. ^ Eckerström Liedholm, Simon; Hecht, Luke; Elliott, Vittoria (September 11, 2024). "Improving wild animal welfare through contraception". BioScience. 74 (10): 695–700. doi:10.1093/biosci/biae071. ISSN 0006-3568. PMC 11494473. PMID 39444510.
193. ^ "In pictures: India's 'original conservationists'". BBC News. July 20, 2014. Retrieved October 23, 2020. In Bishnoi villages, birds and animals roam without fear and feed off human hands
194. ^ Menon, Gangadharan (July 3, 2012). "The Land of The Bishnois - Where Conservation Of Wildlife Is A Religion!". The Better India. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
195. ^ Attfield, Robin (2018). Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-19-879716-6.
196. ^ Clarke, Matthew; Ng, Yew-Kwang (October 2006). "Population Dynamics and Animal Welfare: Issues Raised by the Culling of Kangaroos in Puckapunyal". Social Choice and Welfare. 27 (2): 407–422. doi:10.1007/s00355-006-0137-8. ISSN 0176-1714. S2CID 15023392.
197. ^ Burke, Jason (September 14, 2016). "South African national park to kill animals in response to severe drought". The Guardian. Retrieved March 7, 2021.
198. ^ Dorfman, Andrea (November 7, 1988). "Environment: Free At Last! Bon Voyage!". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved April 6, 2021.
199. ^ ^{a b} Mohdin, Aamna (November 19, 2018). "Top film-makers back penguin intervention on Attenborough show". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
200. ^ "2,000 baby flamingos rescued after being abandoned in South African drought". The Guardian. February 7, 2019. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved February 9, 2019.
201. ^ Zhou, Naaman (December 24, 2019). "Heartbreaking and heartwarming: animals rescued from Australia's bushfires devastation". The Guardian. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
202. ^ "Sri Lanka rescues 120 whales after biggest mass stranding". The Guardian. November 3, 2020. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
203. ^ Trenchard, Tommy; d'Unienville, Aurélie Marrier (February 3, 2021). "Cape cormorants: Caring for South Africa's chicks abandoned in wild". BBC News. Retrieved February 8, 2021.
204. ^ Daly, Natasha (February 19, 2021). "Nearly 5,000 sea turtles rescued from freezing waters on Texas island". National Geographic. Archived from the original on February 19, 2021. Retrieved February 19, 2021.
205. ^ Abbott, Rachel C. (February 17, 2020). "Wildlife Vaccination - Growing in Feasibility?". Cornell Wildlife Health Lab. Retrieved May 30, 2020.
206. ^ "Questions and answers about immunocontraception". The Humane Society of the United States. Retrieved September 9, 2019.
207. ^ ^{a b} Pearce, David (2015). "A Welfare State For Elephants? A Case Study of Compassionate Stewardship". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 153–164. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-pear. Retrieved May 8, 2016.
208. ^ Johannsen, Kyle (April 2017). "Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 20 (2): 333–345. doi:10.1007/s10677-016-9774-x. ISSN 1386-2820. S2CID 151950095.
209. ^ Thornhill, Richard; Morris, Michael (January 1, 2006). "Animal Liberationist Responses to Non-Anthropogenic Animal Suffering" (PDF). Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology. 10 (3): 355–379. doi:10.1163/156853506778942077. ISSN 1363-5247.
210. ^ MacAskill, William; MacAskill, Amanda (September 9, 2015). "To Truly End Animal Suffering, the Most Ethical Choice is To Kill Wild Predators (Especially Cecil the Lion)". Quartz. Retrieved April 17, 2016.
211. ^ Grush, Loren (September 10, 2015). "Killing off wild predators is a stupid idea". The Verge. Retrieved October 29, 2019.
212. ^ Horta, Oscar (2010). "The Ethics of the Ecology of Fear against the Nonspeciesist Paradigm A Shift in the Aims of Intervention in Nature". Between the Species. 13 (10): 163–187. doi:10.15368/bts.2010v13n10.10.
213. ^ Brennan, Ozy (May 23, 2018). "How Pet Owners Can Help Wild Animals And The Environment". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on December 4, 2020. Retrieved March 28, 2021.
214. ^ Milburn, Josh (December 2021). "Welcoming, Wild Animals, and Obligations to Assist". Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 34 (6): 33. Bibcode:2021JAEE...34...33M. doi:10.1007/s10806-021-09873-0. ISSN 1187-7863.
215. ^ John, Tyler M.; Sebo, Jeff (2020). "Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals" (PDF). In Portmore, Douglas W. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism. Douglas W. Portmore. New York, NY. ISBN 978-0-19-090535-4. OCLC 1154100861.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
216. ^ Faria, Catia; Horta, Oscar (2019). "Welfare Biology". In Fischer, Bob (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315105840-41. ISBN 978-1-315-10584-0. S2CID 241043958.
217. ^ Brennan, Ozy (November 25, 2017). "Creating Welfare Biology: A Research Proposal". Wild-Animal Suffering Research. Archived from the original on July 11, 2021. Retrieved September 9, 2019.
218. ^ Salazar, Maria (July 31, 2019). "Why is Welfare Biology Important?". Animal Charity Evaluators. Retrieved September 9, 2019.
219. ^ Matthews, Dylan (April 12, 2021). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved September 5, 2021.
220. ^ Kovic, Marko (February 1, 2021). "Risks of space colonization". Futures. 126: 102638. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2020.102638. ISSN 0016-3287. S2CID 230597480.
221. ^ Eskander, P. (2018). "Crucial considerations in wild animal suffering". EA Global 2018: San Francisco. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK-VNh1AKy0 (transcript: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/DN8WceuyKDqN3m4Jd/persis-eskander-crucial-considerations-in-wild-animal)
222. ^ O'Brien, Gary David (2021). "Directed Panspermia, Wild Animal Suffering, and the Ethics of World-Creation". Journal of Applied Philosophy. 39: 87–102. doi:10.1111/japp.12538. ISSN 1468-5930. S2CID 237774241.
223. ^ Tomasik, Brian (May 20, 2018) [2014]. "Will Space Colonization Multiply Wild-Animal Suffering?". Essays on Reducing Suffering. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
224. ^ Sivula, Oskari (2022). "The Cosmic Significance of Directed Panspermia: Should Humanity Spread Life to Other Solar Systems?". Utilitas. 34 (2): 178–194. doi:10.1017/S095382082100042X. ISSN 0953-8208. S2CID 246519996.
225. ^ Vinding, Magnus (2020). Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications (PDF). Ratio Ethica. p. 249. ISBN 979-8624910911.
226. ^ ^{a b c} Brennan, Ozy (January 1, 2019). "Complexity of wild ruminants". Animal Sentience. 4 (25). doi:10.51291/2377-7478.1492. ISSN 2377-7478.
227. ^ Norcross, Desli. "Wildlife Documentaries: What Happens to the Limping Gazelle?". Nature Ethics. Archived from the original on October 9, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
228. ^ Lopatto, Elizabeth (August 15, 2016). "How natural are nature documentaries?". The Verge. Retrieved October 9, 2019.
229. ^ Rustin, Susanna (October 21, 2011). "David Attenborough: 'I'm an essential evil'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
230. ^ Muñoz, Toni (February 8, 2019). "La representación del sufrimiento de los animales silvestres en los documentales de naturaleza" [The representation of the suffering of wild animals in nature documentaries]. elDiario.es (in Spanish). Retrieved March 25, 2021.
231. ^ ^{a b} Pearce, David (1996). "The Post-Darwinian Transition". The Animal Rights Library. Retrieved March 21, 2021.
232. ^ Palmer, Clare (December 6, 2019), Fischer, Bob (ed.), "The Laissez-Faire View", The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics (1 ed.), Routledge, pp. 444–454, doi:10.4324/9781315105840-40, ISBN 978-1-315-10584-0, S2CID 212772160, retrieved March 21, 2021
233. ^ Gentle, Louise (November 29, 2018). "Dynasties: should nature documentary crews save the animals they film?". The Conversation. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
234. ^ Mabbott, Alastair (December 15, 2019). "Review: My Penguin Year by Lindsay McCrae". The Herald. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
235. ^ ^{a b} Furness, Hannah (December 12, 2016). "Planet Earth II filmmakers defy convention to save lost baby turtles". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on January 25, 2017. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
236. ^ Hamilton, William (1979). "Melville and the Sea". Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 62 (4): 417–429. ISSN 0038-1861. JSTOR 41178134.
237. ^ Andersen, Hans Christian. "Thumbelina". The Hans Christian Andersen Centre. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
238. ^ Ruiz, Javier Herrero (2007). "At the crossroads between literature, culture, linguistics, and cognition: death metaphors in fairy tales". Revista española de lingüística aplicada (20): 59–84. ISSN 0213-2028.
239. ^ Andersen, Hans Christian. "The Ugly Duckling". The Hans Christian Andersen Centre. Retrieved February 24, 2021.
240. ^ Lutts, Ralph H. (October 1, 1992). "The Trouble with Bambi: Walt Disney's Bambi and the American Vision of Nature" (PDF). Forest & Conservation History. 36 (4): 160–171. doi:10.2307/3983677. ISSN 1046-7009. JSTOR 3983677. S2CID 191482526.
241. ^ Lutts, Ralph H. (October 1992). "The Trouble with Bambi: Walt Disney's Bambi and the American Vision of Nature". Forest and Conservation History. 36 (4): 160–171. doi:10.2307/3983677. JSTOR 3983677. S2CID 191482526. Archived from the original on November 3, 2015.
242. ^ Wyndham, John (2000). The Midwich Cuckoos (1st electronic ed.). New York: Rosetta Books. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-7953-0292-3. OCLC 50737644.
243. ^ ^{a b} Adams, Richard (2009). Watership Down. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 465. ISBN 978-1-4391-7612-2.
244. ^ Moser, Zachary (September 20, 2023). "All The Animals Of Farthing Wood Deaths That Traumatized '90s Kids For Life". ScreenRant. Retrieved April 12, 2025.
245. ^ Mannino, Adriano (January 22, 2012). "Natur, Befreiung und Enhancement" [Nature, Liberation and Enhancement]. Tier im Fokus (TIF) (in German). Retrieved February 25, 2021.
246. ^ Bostrom, Nick (1994). "Golden". Nick Bostrom. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
247. ^ Pratchett, Terry (2009). Unseen Academicals. Random House. pp. 311–312. ISBN 978-1-4070-4729-4.
248. ^ Lockett, Christopher (2021). "Death, Cruelty and Magical Humanism". In Brooks, Neil; Blanchette, Sarah (eds.). Narrative Art and the Politics of Health. Anthem Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-78527-711-5.
249. ^ Smith, Joanna (May 2016). "Bloodied and Mauled": Nature's Violent God in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek and Holy the Firm (Master's thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. doi:10.17615/GS6K-8B69.
250. ^ Hawtree, Laura Joy (September 2011). Wild Animals in Roman Epic (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Exeter. pp. 72–73.
251. ^ Mackail, John William (1906). Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology. London; New York: Longmans, Green. p. 209.
252. ^ Nicholson, Reynold Alleyne (1921). Studies in Islamic Poetry. Cambridge University Press. p. 202.
253. ^ Swift, Jonathan (1766). The Works of Dr. Jonathan Swift. Vol. 7. Edinburgh: G. Hamilton & J. Balfour, and L. Hunter. p. 40.
254. ^ Voltaire (1883). "Poème sur le désastre de lisbonne". In Moland, Louis (ed.). Œuvres complètes de Voltaire (in French). Garnier.
255. ^ Voltaire (1912). "Poem on the Lisbon Disaster". In MacCabe, Joseph (ed.). Toleration and Other Essays. New York; London: G. P. Putnam's Sons. pp. 258–259.
256. ^ Blackstone, Bernard (2015). English Blake. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-107-50342-7. OCLC 914164179.
257. ^ Blake, William (1915). Pierce, Frederick Erastus (ed.). Selections from the Symbolical Poems of William Blake. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. 10–11.
258. ^ ^{a b c} Darwin, Erasmus (1804). The Temple of Nature. Baltimore: Bonsal & Niles.
259. ^ Simon, Ed (May 29, 2019). "How Erasmus Darwin's poetry prophesied evolutionary theory". Aeon. Retrieved March 20, 2021.
260. ^ Gompertz, Isaac (1813). The Modern Antique; Or, The Muse in the Costume of Queen Anne. London: W. Pople. p. 307.
261. ^ Keats, John (1905). de Sélincourt, Ernest (ed.). The Poems of John Keats. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co. p. 272.
262. ^ Hillier, Russell M. (November 1, 2014). "'A Wondrous Lesson in thy Silent Face': Keats, Darwin, and the Geological Sublime". Arcadia. 49 (2): 254–284. doi:10.1515/arcadia-2014-0023. ISSN 1613-0642.
263. ^ Weiss, Kenneth M. (2010). "'Nature, red in tooth and claw', so what?". Evolutionary Anthropology. 19 (2): 41–45. doi:10.1002/evan.20255. ISSN 1520-6505. S2CID 32999483.
264. ^ Tennyson, Alfred (1893). Maud: A Monodrama. London: Kelmscott Press. p. 11.
265. ^ Arnold, Edwin (1900) [1879]. The Light of Asia. Chicago: W. B. Conkey. pp. 25–26.
266. ^ Stenerson, Douglas C. (Winter 1991). "Some impressions of the Buddha: Dreiser and Sir Edwin Arnold's the light of Asia". Canadian Review of American Studies. 22 (3): 387–405. doi:10.3138/CRAS-022-03-05. S2CID 159914010.
267. ^ "The Bloody Sire". The Poetry Foundation. Retrieved September 19, 2024.
268. ^ "Hurt Hawks". Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved September 19, 2024.

• Matthews, Dylan (April 12, 2021). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved May 15, 2021.
• Introduction to Wild Animal Suffering: A Guide to the Key Issues (PDF). Animal Ethics. 2020.
• "Helping animals in the wild bibliography". Animal Ethics. August 5, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
• "The situation of animals in the wild bibliography". Animal Ethics. August 2, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
• "Publications about wild animal suffering". Animal Ethics. April 30, 2018. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
• Dorado, Daniel (November 2, 2015). "Ethical Interventions in the Wild. An Annotated Bibliography". Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism. 3 (2): 219–238. doi:10.7358/rela-2015-002-dora. ISSN 2280-9643.
• Stafforini, Pablo (June 6, 2013). "Wild animal welfare: a bibliography". Pablo's miscellany. Retrieved February 18, 2021.

• Wild Animal Initiative
• Wild Animal Suffering – Animal Ethics
• Wild animal suffering video course – Animal Ethics
• Timeline of wild-animal suffering
• WildAnimalSuffering.org

• v
• t
• e

Topics (overviews, concepts, issues, cases)

• Animal rights movement
• Animal rights by country or territory
• Anarchism and animal rights
• Animal rights and punk subculture
• Animal cruelty–Holocaust analogies
• Animal rights in Indian religions
• Christianity and animal rights
• History of animal rights
• List of international animal welfare conventions
• Moral status of animals in the ancient world
• Timeline of animal welfare and rights
• Total liberation
• Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

• Abolitionism
• Ahimsa
• Animal cognition
• Animal consciousness
• Animal–industrial complex
• Animal machine
• Animal law
• Animal protectionism
• Animal welfare
• Animal-free agriculture
• Anthropocentrism
• Argument from marginal cases
• Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
• Carnism
• Equal consideration of interests
• Emotion in animals
• Ethics of eating meat
• Ethics of uncertain sentience
• Insects in ethics
• Intrinsic value
• Meat paradox
• Moral circle expansion
• Nonviolence
• Nonkilling
• Open rescue
• Opposition to hunting
• Personism
• Replaceability argument
• Sentientism
• Speciesism
• Veganism
• Vegaphobia
• Vegetarianism

• Animal husbandry
• Animal product
• Battery cage
• Bile bear
• Chick culling
• Crocodile farm
• Concentrated animal feeding operation
• Fish farming
• Fur farming
• Fur trade
• Insect farming
• Intensive animal farming
• Intensive pig farming
• Livestock
• Poultry farming
• Slaughterhouse
• Wildlife farming
• Working animal
• Feedback (pork industry)
• Foam depopulation
• Ventilation shutdown

• Alternatives to animal testing
• Animal testing on non-human primates
• Animal testing regulations
• Great ape research ban
• Green Scare
• Huntingdon Life Sciences
• Model organism
• Nafovanny
• Operation Backfire
• Vivisection

• Animal euthanasia
• Cruelty to animals
• Pain in animals
• Pain in amphibians
• Pain in cephalopods
• Pain in crustaceans
• Pain in fish
• Pain in invertebrates
• Pain and suffering in laboratory animals
• Welfare of farmed insects

• Commercial fishing
• Fishing bait
• Recreational fishing

• Culling wildlife
• Hare coursing
• Hunting
• International primate trade
• Ivory trade
• Predation problem
• Seal hunting
• Wild animal suffering
• Wildlife management

• Abandoned pets
• Animal captivity
• Animal sacrifice
• Animal slaughter
• Animal trial
• Animals in sport
• Blood sport
• Live food
• Live export

• Brown Dog affair
• Cambridge University primates
• McLibel case
• Monkey selfie copyright dispute
• Pit of despair
• SHAC
• Silver Spring monkeys
• University of California, Riverside 1985 laboratory raid
• Unnecessary Fuss
• War of the currents

• Animal ethics
• Anthrozoology
• Critical animal studies
• Ethology
• Vegan studies

• Direct Action Everywhere
• Hunt sabotage

• World Animal Day
• World Day for the End of Speciesism
• World Day for Laboratory Animals
• World Day for the End of Fishing
• World Vegan Day
• World Vegetarian Day

(academics, writers, activists)

• Carol J. Adams
• Aysha Akhtar
• Kristin Andrews
• Marc Bekoff
• Steven Best
• Paola Cavalieri
• Stephen R. L. Clark
• Alasdair Cochrane
• J. M. Coetzee
• Alice Crary
• David DeGrazia
• Daniel Dombrowski
• Sue Donaldson
• Josephine Donovan
• Joan Dunayer
• Mylan Engel
• Catia Faria
• Lawrence Finsen
• Michael W. Fox
• Gary L. Francione
• Robert Garner
• Valéry Giroux
• Lori Gruen
• John Hadley
• Oscar Horta
• Dale Jamieson
• Kyle Johannsen
• Melanie Joy
• Hilda Kean
• Will Kymlicka
• Renan Larue
• Thomas Lepeltier
• Andrew Linzey
• Clair Linzey
• Dan Lyons
• David Nibert
• Martha Nussbaum
• Clare Palmer
• Charles Patterson
• David Pearce
• Jessica Pierce
• Evelyn Pluhar
• Mark Rowlands
• Richard D. Ryder
• Steve F. Sapontzis
• Jeff Sebo
• Jérôme Segal
• Peter Singer
• Gary Steiner
• Cass Sunstein
• David Sztybel
• Michael Tye
• Tatjana Višak
• Paul Waldau
• Corey Lee Wrenn

• Tom Beauchamp
• Jeremy Bentham
• David Renaud Boullier
• Stephen St. C. Bostock
• Brigid Brophy
• Peter Buchan
• Mona Caird
• Priscilla Cohn
• Henry Crowe
• Herman Daggett
• Richard Dean
• Wilhelm Dietler
• William Hamilton Drummond
• Edward Payson Evans
• T. Forster
• John Galsworthy
• Thomas G. Gentry
• V. A. Holmes-Gore
• Arthur Helps
• John Hildrop
• John Zephaniah Holwell
• Francis Hutcheson
• Soame Jenyns
• Marie Jungius
• Karl Christian Friedrich Krause
• John Lawrence
• Charles R. Magel
• Jean Meslier
• Mary Midgley
• J. Howard Moore
• José Ferrater Mora
• Robert Morris
• Leonard Nelson
• Edward Nicholson
• Siobhan O'Sullivan
• John Oswald
• Rod Preece
• Humphrey Primatt
• James Rachels
• Tom Regan
• Nathaniel Peabody Rogers
• Bernard Rollin
• Henry Stephens Salt
• Arthur Schopenhauer
• Laurids Smith
• John Styles
• Thomas Tryon
• Gary Varner
• Johann Friedrich Ludwig Volckmann
• Mary Anne Warren
• Adam Gottlieb Weigen
• Johann Heinrich Winckler
• Steven M. Wise
• Jon Wynne-Tyson
• Voltaire
• Thomas Young

• James Aspey
• Greg Avery
• Matt Ball
• Martin Balluch
• Carole Baskin
• Barbi Twins
• Brigitte Bardot
• Gene Baur
• Yves Bonnardel
• Joey Carbstrong
• Aymeric Caron
• Jake Conroy
• Rod Coronado
• Karen Dawn
• Chris DeRose
• John Feldmann
• Bruce Friedrich
• Juliet Gellatley
• Tal Gilboa
• Antoine Goetschel
• Mark Gold
• Brigitte Gothière
• Alex Hershaft
• Wayne Hsiung
• Charlotte Laws
• Ronnie Lee
• Howard Lyman
• Evanna Lynch
• Bill Maher
• Keith Mann
• Jim Mason
• Dan Mathews
• Joaquin Phoenix
• Jo-Anne McArthur
• Luísa Mell
• Virginia McKenna
• Morrissey
• Ingrid Newkirk
• Heather Nicholson
• Jack Norris
• Ric O'Barry
• David Olivier
• Alex Pacheco
• Craig Rosebraugh
• Jasmin Singer
• Kim Stallwood
• Lynda Stoner
• Marianne Thieme
• Darren Thurston
• Christine Townend
• Wendy Turner-Webster
• Jerry Vlasak
• Louise Wallis
• Ed Winters
• Gary Yourofsky
• That Vegan Teacher

• Cleveland Amory
• Henry B. Amos
• Bob Barker
• Ernest Bell
• William Brown
• Edith Carrington
• Frances Power Cobbe
• Joan Court
• Karen Davis
• Royal Dixon
• Muriel Dowding
• Elizabeth Farians
• Emarel Freshel
• André Géraud
• Lewis Gompertz
• James Granger
• Barry Horne
• Marie Huot
• Lizzy Lind af Hageby
• Jessie Mackay
• Alfred Mansfield Mitchell
• J. Isaac Pengelly
• Norm Phelps
• Jill Phipps
• Maud Ingersoll Probasco
• Hans Ruesch
• Magnus Schwantje
• Nell Shipman
• Henry Spira
• Joseph Stratton
• Andrew Tyler
• Gretchen Wyler

(groups, parties)

• American Anti-Vivisection Society
• Animal Aid
• Animal Ethics
• Animal Justice
• Animal Justice Project
• Animal Legal Defense Fund
• Animal Liberation
• Animal Liberation Front
• Animal Liberation Press Office
• Animal Liberation Victoria
• Animal Rights Militia
• Animal Rising
• AnimaNaturalis
• Anti-Vivisection Coalition
• Anonymous for the Voiceless
• Beauty Without Cruelty
• Born Free Foundation
• Centre for Animals and Social Justice
• Chinese Animal Protection Network
• Cruelty Free International
• Direct Action Everywhere
• Doctors Against Animal Experiments
• Equanimal
• Every Animal
• Farm Animal Rights Movement
• Faunalytics
• Great Ape Project
• Hunt Saboteurs Association
• In Defense of Animals
• Korea Animal Rights Advocates
• L214
• Last Chance for Animals
• Massachusetts Animal Rights Coalition
• Mercy for Animals
• Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade
• Rise for Animals
• Sentience Politics
• Uncaged Campaigns
• United Activists for Animal Rights
• United Poultry Concerns
• UPF-Centre for Animal Ethics
• Viva!
• Voice for Animals Humane Society
• Voiceless

• Canadian Anti-Vivisection Society
• Humanitarian League (1891–1919)
• Millennium Guild
• Order of the Golden Age
• Oxford Group

• Animal Justice Party (Australia)
• Animal Politics EU (Europe)
• Animal Protection Party of Canada (Canada)
• Animal Justice Party of Finland (Finland)
• Animals' Party (Sweden)
• Animalist Movement (Italy)
• Animalist Party with the Environment (Spain)
• DierAnimal (Belgium)
• Human Environment Animal Protection Party (Germany)
• Italian Animalist Party (Italy)
• Party for the Animals (Netherlands)
• People Animals Nature (Portugal)
• V-Partei³ (Germany)

• Animal Rights National Conference

Media (books, films, periodicals, albums)

• On Abstinence from Eating Animals (3rd century)
• A Reasonable Plea for the Animal Creation (1746)
• A System of Moral Philosophy, in Three Books (1755)
• The Cry of Nature (1791)
• An Essay on Humanity to Animals (1798)
• Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes (1824)
• The Rights of Animals (1838)
• The Ethics of Diet (1883)
• A Plea for Vegetarianism and Other Essays (1886)
• Animals' Rights (1892)
• Evolutional Ethics and Animal Psychology (1897)
• Better-World Philosophy (1899)
• The Logic of Vegetarianism (1899)
• The Universal Kinship (1906)
• The New Ethics (1907)
• Animals, Men and Morals (1971)
• Animal Liberation (1975)
• The Case for Animal Rights (1983)
• Morals, Reason, and Animals (1987)
• Zoos and Animal Rights (1993)
• Animals, Property, and the Law (1995)
• The Lives of Animals (1999)
• Eternal Treblinka (2001)
• Do Animals Have Rights? (2005)
• Striking at the Roots (2008)
• An American Trilogy (2009)
• An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory (2010)
• Animal Rights Without Liberation (2012)
• Political Animals and Animal Politics (2014)
• Animal (De)liberation (2016)
• Sentientist Politics (2018)
• Wild Animal Ethics (2020)
• Animal Ethics in the Wild (2022)
• Making a Stand for Animals (2022)
• Animal Rights Law (2023)
• The Moral Circle (2025)

• The Animals Film (1981)
• A Cow at My Table (1998)
• Shores of Silence (2000)
• The Witness (2000)
• Meet Your Meat (2002)
• Legally Blonde 2 (2003)
• The Meatrix (2003)
• Peaceable Kingdom (2004)
• Earthlings (2005)
• Behind the Mask (2006)
• Your Mommy Kills Animals (2007)
• Food, Inc. (2009)
• The Cove (2009)
• Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home (2009)
• Forks Over Knives (2011)
• Vegucated (2011)
• An Apology to Elephants (2013)
• Speciesism: The Movie (2013)
• The Ghosts in Our Machine (2013)
• Unlocking the Cage (2016)
• Land of Hope and Glory (2017)
• Carnage (2017)
• Okja (2017)
• Dominion (2018)
• Seaspiracy (2021)

• Animal Sentience
• Between the Species
• Cahiers antispécistes
• Etica & Animali
• Journal of Animal Ethics
• Relations. Beyond Anthropocentrism
• The Animals' Defender

• Arkangel
• Bite Back
• Muutoksen kevät
• No Compromise
• Satya

• Animal Liberation (1987)
• Tame Yourself (1991)
• Manifesto (2008)
• Salvation of Innocents (2014)
• Onward to Freedom (2014)

• Holocaust on your Plate (2003)

• Category ( 137 )

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4