What could humanity do to reduce mass animal suffering in the wild?

Tons of wild animals struggle, starve, and bleed every day, even without humans being responsible. Most animal welfare movements are focused on human-inflicted issues, or about the health of specific animals people come across & care about (like pets or the rabbit in your lawn), but. Is there anything that we, as the dominant species and advanced culture, could theoretically do to help wild animals with all the rest of their suffering? With fear, hunger, injuries, etc

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Cull half of all humans.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ever heard about little tyke the lion?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >kill all animals
    >there is then no more animal suffering

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the anime villain solution

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Since animal agriculture is the leading factor in deforestation, abstaining from animal products is an easy and accessible way to reduce your impact on wild animals

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But farmed animals suffer measurably less and deforestation reduces wild animal populations bruv

      In the future their brains wont even be capable of pain and “suffering” (they dont even suffer now because they arent self aware like cats are)

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Realistically? Drive them to extinction.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What you’re talking about sounds good and cozy and wholesome on the surface, but it would have catastrophic consequences for the planet, the “suffering” you’re referring to is necessary and we had to go through the same, it was the catalyst for how we managed to wienerslap everything else into submission, removing that ‘suffering’ would only weaken and pussify them like others have said

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Letting nature select out animals keeps them healthy. You should be killed for promoting a tolerance that will only lead to weaker and diseased populations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I suspect it's hardwired into the way life works. As in, even if by some impossible marvel of genetic engineering you managed to turn every animal smarter than an earthworm into an herbivore and reshape the ecosystem accordingly, before long natural selection would re-evolve predation. Maybe we'll get to a point when we can get rid of physical bodies, idk.

      Missing the point.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nuking china

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    kill every animal that's not in a zoo, simple as that

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thats one badass bear

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    start by killing yourself, right now
    suffering is an exclusively human concept

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not commodifying and reducing their habitats would be a good start.
    Death, and by extension suffering, are facets of nature necessary for the continuation of predatory species as well as the soil cycle.
    There is a delicate balance that has been struck over countless years between autotrophs and heterotrophs that is maintained through the predation of animals that consume plants.

    I really don't see a way for humans to modify these natural processes to better appeal to their subjectively "superior" moral sensibilities, at least not without significant cost and maintenance that would be incredibly disruptive to animal life. (Though prey robots clad in vat-grown/vegan meat are a very funny concept)

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If we figure out how to do this, it will be because we have put our own oxygen mask on first, as a species. We are not even capable stewards of ourselves yet. There's a lot we can do in the meantime, but you have heard of these already; like volunteering at animal shelters, donating to wildlife reserves, stopping poaching, rewilding projects, but we've got a long journey ahead. We are our brothers keepers feelsstrongman

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will bite the hook.

    You have nature welfare services as well as advocacy groups that focus on the exact thing you are describing. Domestic/agricultural animals are not exclusively cared about regarding welfare. In addtion both welfare/advocacy groups heavily lean into the idea of nature being a baseline and human influence being an artificial force disproportionately impacting the balance of the world. What you are proposing is the use of human influence to transform this entire baseline to somehow create a utopia for animals. Your philosophy is not only incompatible with most natural wild life lovers and hippies, you are the exact enemy to their philosophy and you are more in line with transhumanist climate change accelerationists ironically.

    Don't be moronic. "Nature" is immoral and what nature does to itself without human influence is not mankind's responsibility.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *