This is a linkpost for Positive Wild Animal Welfare by Heather Browning and Walter Veit, which was originally published on Biology & Philosophy on 12 March 2023. The abstract and last paragraph of the introduction are below. I am still guessing soil animals have negative lives, but I have been very uncertain.

Abstract

With increasing attention given to wild animal welfare and ethics, it has become common to depict animals in the wild as existing in a state dominated by suffering. This assumption is now taken on board by many and frames much of the current discussion; but needs a more critical assessment, both theoretically and empirically. In this paper, we challenge the primary lines of evidence employed in support of wild animal suffering, to provide an alternative picture in which wild animals may often have lives that are far more positive than is commonly assumed. Nevertheless, while it is useful to have an alternative model to challenge unexamined assumptions, our real emphasis in this paper is the need for the development of effective methods for applying animal welfare science in the wild, including new means of data collection, the ability to determine the extent and scope of welfare challenges and opportunities, and their effects on welfare. Until such methods are developed, discussions of wild animal welfare cannot go beyond trading of intuitions, which as we show here can just as easily go in either direction.

Introduction

There are three primary lines of evidence that are used to illustrate the dominance of suffering in nature: the brutish nature of wild animal deaths, the prevalence of negative experiences within their lives, and the suffering taken to be attendant with reproductive strategies that involve producing large numbers of short-lived offspring (Horta 2010). In this article, we will tackle each of these in turn, providing an alternative picture to support the claim that most animals may actually have lives with net-positive welfare, or what would be considered ‘lives worth living’. Section 2, ‘Bad Deaths’, challenges the assumption that deaths in nature contain extreme amounts of suffering. Section 3, ‘Bad Lives’, challenges the assumption that wild animals necessarily have a low daily quality of life. Section 4, ‘Reproductive Strategies’ challenges the assumption that the dominant life-history strategy of r-selected species must necessarily involve a lot of suffering. After having discussed the evidence base for wild animal welfare, Sect. 5, ‘The Intervention Question’, will look at the issue of whether animal welfare interventions in the wild are feasible, arguing that consideration of the range of positive welfare experiences should lead to even more caution in intervention. Section 6, ‘Conclusion and Further Directions’ summarizes the key points of this paper, emphasising that more data is urgently needed to settle the matter and allow us to move forwards with planning effective strategies for assistance where required and suggesting further directions for the study of wild animal welfare; both for the purposes of ethics and our understanding of the lives of other sentient animals.