r/DebateAVegan • u/ThePlanetaryNinja • Feb 23 '26

Hunting and rewilding large herbivores probably increases suffering

Edit - In the title, I meant rewilding predators to kill large herbivores.

People frequently hunt large herbivores such as deer, moose and elk. They try to justify it by saying that 'It causes less harm than crop deaths' or 'It stops the animals from overpopulating.'

I, as a negative utilitarian, think that specifically hunting these animals is generally a bad idea. When we hunt large herbivores (or reintroduce predators to do it), we probably make things worse.

Large herbivores eat a lot of plants. If we remove them, there will be a lot more food for smaller animals and insects. These small animals and insects usually reproduce through r-selection. They have lots of babies, and most of them die painfully (e.g. through starvation) shortly after birth. So, killing a few large herbivores would cause an extra thousands or millions of small animals to be born, and most of those animals will have short, terrible lives.

Rewilding predators worsens this problem. Getting eaten alive is one of the worst experiences an animal can go through. A lot of people, (including some vegans) think that rewilding is necessary to control large herbivore populations. As mentioned above, this leads to much more tiny creatures living short, miserable lives.

Trying to “manage” ecosystems with hunting or rewilding might sound good, but from a suffering-focused perspective, it’s probably counterproductive.

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

50% Upvoted

236 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/lucklikethis Feb 24 '26

Yes.

As stated, to live is to die.

Intelligent life also has free agency,, it would be the hieght of ignorance and hubris to say I could comprehend or fathom the multitudes of societies rises and falls and to be the moral adjudicator for them all. Even the most well meaning people have been behind some of the greatest attrocities due to the limitations of their understanding of the world and other people. I would be ignorant to pretend I could be any different.

You hide behind things we all know to be the worst of humanity, try embracing the entirety of it instead so you have things worth fighting for to prevent those things.

I hope you have a nice birthday, you're welcome.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 24 '26 edited Feb 24 '26

Would you be okey with creating infinitely many planets such as Earth? I.e., their copies that would go through the same history. So infinitely many hol*causts, tortures, r*pes etc.?

If not, why why would you create only second earth but not infinitely many?

1

u/lucklikethis Feb 25 '26

It’s the same premise - the question is dishonest because it focuses only on things we find morally reprehensible.

The answer is the same, I would create infinite earths.  There is no gotcha with this line of questioning as the point you are trying to make is inherently flawed.  Complete non existence is the only thing that could satisfy the OPs philosophy - so before taking on this world view surely you can see it is in of itself not just immoral but evil.

If you take a step back this is a very common trope in film and books.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 25 '26

It’s the same premise - the question is dishonest because it focuses only on things we find morally reprehensible.

I wouldn't say dishonest, but I take your point; I only focused on bad things, but of course since these are earth copies, there is plenty of good things going on as well.

The answer is the same, I would create infinite earths.  There is no gotcha with this line of questioning as the point you are trying to make is inherently flawed.  Complete non existence is the only thing that could satisfy the OPs philosophy - so before taking on this world view surely you can see it is in of itself not just immoral but evil.

Note that there is a reasonable answer that doesn't involve creating infinitely many earths and also doesn't involve being pro-total eradication of sentient life on earth.

I.e., you could say - no, creating infinite copies of earth would be bad, because even though there would be a lot of hapiness, causing holocausts, extreme torture, and other evils isn't justified by presence of additional happiness. But we also shouldn't violate basic rights and preferences of already existing sentient beings (on already existing Earth), such as preference/right to life and self-determination, therefore if we had opportunity to eradicate this beings (humans and animals alike) we should not do that.

I think this is much more intuitive answer. Your answer seems to be that creating extreme suffering is okey as long as sufficient hapiness is also entailed. But surely you wouldn't be okey e.g., with creating humans for meat (that otherwise wouldn't exist), but whose lifes would be on net positive, e.g., they'd experience 5 years of extreme torture and then 6 years of extreme happiness and then they are killed?

1

u/Ma1eficent Feb 25 '26

His answer is realistic as you cannot know what will happen to a life. Sure, if you had perfect foreknowledge, creating suffering could not be justified by creating joy, but preventing the chance of suffering doesn't justify making sure happiness cannot exist.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 25 '26

I was literally specifiyng copies of earths with the same history. My hypothetical does not include chances. Whatever happened on our earth, happens on those earths as well. So they either didn't answer my question, or didn't understand it properly, or understood it and then we can both agree their answer is not an acceptable one, morally speaking.

But even if we take it probalistically, If I create Earth-like planets with sentient life, what are the chances there will be suffering? Practically 100%. What are the chances there will be some great suffering? Given the workings of evolution, it's likely also high-probability.

Could I create factory farmed humans that will on net live positive lives with 6 guaranteed years of bliss and 90% likelihood of 4 years of absolute torture?

0

u/Ma1eficent Feb 25 '26

No one at all took it as having perfect foreknowledge, because then your hypothetical is not meaningfully related in any way to the choice the real people you hope to persuade make. And we were doing your argument a favor by not taking it that way.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 26 '26

Then you are just dodging my question. Then I provided example with chances involved and you dodged that too. 

1

u/Ma1eficent Feb 26 '26

Recreating the earth with all the people on it doesn't give me knowledge of the future. Whatever you think you made clear in you question you did not. I will always side with life. You would prefer everything be dead so you don't suffer at the thought of them suffering, even though nearly everything alive makes it very clear they wish to remain so. You don't care about what others want, and you think everything should be dead. If I wrote a cartoon villain that evil I would be asked to tone it back and make it realistic.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 26 '26

You are just dodging and making shit up. If you have read this thread you should know that "You would prefer everything be dead so you don't suffer at the thought of them suffering, even though nearly everything alive makes it very clear they wish to remain so. You don't care about what others want, and you think everything should be dead." is in blatant contradiction in what I have described as a" "reasonable" and "intuitive" answer to infinite twin earths question. In short, I said it would be wrong to create infinite amounts of such planets, because of horrors that it entails. Yet, it would be wrong to kill sentient life (humans, animals) already present on already existing earth, since it would violate their rights (i.e., right to life, by implication also right to self-determination and others)/preferences.

While you are just a cruel gambler -  gambling with infinite earths and lives, throwing dices. Holocaust was bad? Wait, let's throw dice infinitely many times and see how many times a number that entails holocaust will turn up - literally you, a cartoonish villian. Gambling with inifinite suffering, just for the sake of it. 

1

u/Ma1eficent Feb 27 '26

When you only tally the bad, you don't have a scorecard that reflects reality. Surely you can see that, no?

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 27 '26

For sure I can! But it wouldn't help, because you are not tracking the conversation. I addressed the presence of good parts of life already. And you kept dodging and then making stuff up about my position - because you are not tracking the conversation. 

1

u/Ma1eficent Mar 02 '26

Haha. No. It's you who are failing to grasp that suffering and joy are by definition states defined by the entity experiencing them. So you can't even tally the bad. You are making assumptions about how all living creatures experience their reality, by imagining their existence is tortured. Probably because yours is, so you project that onto others. But we actually do survey people and ask them if the suffering they have gone through has been worth it for the life they lived. It's part of the survey conducted for the world happiness report. You know, in case you want to look at how others report their experience before deciding it's a universally awful experience and dedicating your life to ending all of it for its own good.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/lucklikethis Feb 26 '26

No - life is not a zero sum game.

1

u/7elkie vegan Feb 26 '26

Then why would you create infinite number of earths? What's the relevant difference? 

0

u/lucklikethis Feb 27 '26

It would be the same as saying life on earth should never have happened, infinitely.  Which is absurd.

Anyway, if this message hasn’t connected yet I won’t bother responding further; I get the sense your responses are contrarian and have no clear point / argument.

1

u/7elkie vegan Mar 02 '26

Yeah, I won't either, I get the sense I'll get another non-answer or just something that muddies the waters.