Take the 2025 EA Forum Survey to help inform our strategy and prioritiesTake the survey

Here is a timeline of the wild-animal suffering (WAS) movement which I originally wrote in 2018. I recently updated the timeline with some more recent events. The timeline has major contributions from Mati Roy and Blue and some minor contributions from Vipul Naik and Issa Rice. Here are some of the major developments in the history of the movement, quoted from the article:

Big picture
pre-1970: Wild-animal suffering is occasionally mentioned by philosophers as an example of the amorality of nature. In general, there is little discussion of whether humans should intervene to improve the situation.
1970–2004: After the emergence of the contemporary animal rights/welfare movement, wild-animal suffering is discussed by animal rights philosophers and their critics. The critics consider intervention in nature a reductio ad absurdum of animal rights, while some animal rights authors take it to be a serious moral issue. Most discussion takes place through journals, and discussion participants are mostly academics.
2005–2012: During this period, interest in wild-animal suffering blossoms with the help of the Internet. Prolific and passionate individuals such as Brian Tomasik, David Pearce, and Oscar Horta play a leading role in creating content and birthing online communities. The academic moral philosophy community also continues debating the issue.
2013–2016: Organizations begin to form that focus on wild-animal suffering, research, and advocacy (as either a primary or secondary focus). Publications reated to wild animals come from a mix of individuals and organizations. Some organizations use prizes to incentivize work on wild-animal suffering, with mixed results. The nascent effective altruism community exposes more people to wild-animal suffering earlier on in their lives.
2017–2020: In this era, a large share of the production of research related to wild-animal suffering is by individuals as part of their work for organizations. Key organizations that sponsor a large number of publications are: Utility Farm, Wild-Animal Suffering Research (the two would later merge into the Wild Animal Initiative), Animal Ethics, Sentience Institute, and (starting late 2018) Rethink Priorities. The ecosystem is sustained by grant money from the Effective Altruism Animal Welfare Fund, Animal Charity Evaluators' Animal Advocacy Research Fund, and individual donors.

Any thoughts or feedback would be greatly appreciated!

59

0
0
1

Reactions

0
0
1
Comments9


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Impressive timeline!

Minor feedback: it could be nice to have an overall name for each of those big picture eras. Also I remember that Richard Dawkins has written about the suffering of wild animals but it isn't in your timeline: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering#Extent_of_suffering_in_nature

Apologies if that's an intentional omission.

Dawkins wrote about it and said "it must be so." Maybe the timeline is about people who explicitly challenged that perception.

Thanks, I've added Dawkins's River Out of Eden. I agree with Lukas Gloor that Dawkins doesn't challenge the perception of WAS as necessary, but then again many of the other early entries don't. I think it's worthy of inclusion here.

I like this quotation from the book which I think is quite powerful:

"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."

Amazing work, thanks for writing this up!

Nice and helpful -- thanks!

I've always been fascinated by the biblical vision of a perfect world which features the lion and the lamb (etc) living together peacefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lamb_and_lion

It might be interesting to sift through the history of humanity in order to collect further pre-1970 visions which lament WAS or which feature a utopia without WAS. I know extremely little about Buddhism, Hinduism, etc but given the links between humans and animals via rebirths: isn't the Nirvana as a state without suffering also the ultimate vision for wild animals? Also, there is the biblical new testament reference to the *whole* creation groaning and waiting for redemption.

thanks for the summary. useful for me since i dont know a lot about this subject yet. :)

would definitely also enjoy a bit more detail about the results of the research of the last years. like what are the major camps, arguments, open questions etc

ACE's Effective Animal Advocacy Fund (full disclosure, I run this fund) also funds WAW orgs. ACE's EAA Fund is separate from ACE's Research Fund and not affiliated with EA Animal Welfare Fund.

I think I already included all relevant EAA Fund entries under April and November 2019 in the timeline. Is there anything I'm missing?

Edit: I just realized that you were referring to the "Big picture" section. Added!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
This morning I was looking into Switzerland's new animal welfare labelling law. I was going through the list of abuses that are now required to be documented on labels, and one of them made me do a double-take: "Frogs: Leg removal without anaesthesia."  This confused me. Why are we talking about anaesthesia? Shouldn't the frogs be dead before having their legs removed? It turns out the answer is no; standard industry practice is to cut their legs off while they are fully conscious. They remain alive and responsive for up to 15 minutes afterward. As far as I can tell, there are zero welfare regulations in any major producing country. The scientific evidence for frog sentience is robust - they have nociceptors, opioid receptors, demonstrate pain avoidance learning, and show cognitive abilities including spatial mapping and rule-based learning.  It's hard to find data on the scale of this issue, but estimates put the order of magnitude at billions of frogs annually. I could not find any organisations working directly on frog welfare interventions.  Here are the organizations I found that come closest: * Animal Welfare Institute has documented the issue and published reports, but their focus appears more on the ecological impact and population decline rather than welfare reforms * PETA has conducted investigations and released footage, but their approach is typically to advocate for complete elimination of the practice rather than welfare improvements * Pro Wildlife, Defenders of Wildlife focus on conservation and sustainability rather than welfare standards This issue seems tractable. There is scientific research on humane euthanasia methods for amphibians, but this research is primarily for laboratory settings rather than commercial operations. The EU imports the majority of traded frog legs through just a few countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam, creating clear policy leverage points. A major retailer (Carrefour) just stopped selling frog legs after welfar
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
This is a cross post written by Andy Masley, not me. I found it really interesting and wanted to see what EAs/rationalists thought of his arguments.  This post was inspired by similar posts by Tyler Cowen and Fergus McCullough. My argument is that while most drinkers are unlikely to be harmed by alcohol, alcohol is drastically harming so many people that we should denormalize alcohol and avoid funding the alcohol industry, and the best way to do that is to stop drinking. This post is not meant to be an objective cost-benefit analysis of alcohol. I may be missing hard-to-measure benefits of alcohol for individuals and societies. My goal here is to highlight specific blindspots a lot of people have to the negative impacts of alcohol, which personally convinced me to stop drinking, but I do not want to imply that this is a fully objective analysis. It seems very hard to create a true cost-benefit analysis, so we each have to make decisions about alcohol given limited information. I’ve never had problems with alcohol. It’s been a fun part of my life and my friends’ lives. I never expected to stop drinking or to write this post. Before I read more about it, I thought of alcohol like junk food: something fun that does not harm most people, but that a few people are moderately harmed by. I thought of alcoholism, like overeating junk food, as a problem of personal responsibility: it’s the addict’s job (along with their friends, family, and doctors) to fix it, rather than the job of everyday consumers. Now I think of alcohol more like tobacco: many people use it without harming themselves, but so many people are being drastically harmed by it (especially and disproportionately the most vulnerable people in society) that everyone has a responsibility to denormalize it. You are not likely to be harmed by alcohol. The average drinker probably suffers few if any negative effects. My argument is about how our collective decision to drink affects other people. This post is not
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
Today, Forethought and I are releasing an essay series called Better Futures, here.[1] It’s been something like eight years in the making, so I’m pretty happy it’s finally out! It asks: when looking to the future, should we focus on surviving, or on flourishing? In practice at least, future-oriented altruists tend to focus on ensuring we survive (or are not permanently disempowered by some valueless AIs). But maybe we should focus on future flourishing, instead.  Why?  Well, even if we survive, we probably just get a future that’s a small fraction as good as it could have been. We could, instead, try to help guide society to be on track to a truly wonderful future.    That is, I think there’s more at stake when it comes to flourishing than when it comes to survival. So maybe that should be our main focus. The whole essay series is out today. But I’ll post summaries of each essay over the course of the next couple of weeks. And the first episode of Forethought’s video podcast is on the topic, and out now, too. The first essay is Introducing Better Futures: along with the supplement, it gives the basic case for focusing on trying to make the future wonderful, rather than just ensuring we get any ok future at all. It’s based on a simple two-factor model: that the value of the future is the product of our chance of “Surviving” and of the value of the future, if we do Survive, i.e. our “Flourishing”.  (“not-Surviving”, here, means anything that locks us into a near-0 value future in the near-term: extinction from a bio-catastrophe counts but if valueless superintelligence disempowers us without causing human extinction, that counts, too. I think this is how “existential catastrophe” is often used in practice.) The key thought is: maybe we’re closer to the “ceiling” on Survival than we are to the “ceiling” of Flourishing.  Most people (though not everyone) thinks we’re much more likely than not to Survive this century.  Metaculus puts *extinction* risk at about 4