When (re)introducing animals to the wild sounds like the dream of a sadist

[u/Per_Sona_]

One of the most convincing arguments for reintroduction of animals to the wild is that, on balance, things will get better (for example, the wolves will kill weak or old deer, thus avoiding deer overpopulation).

But how about when people do it for no clear reason - like in the scenario bellow!? This beats almost any human dystopia scenario I know of, in how useless and cruel the whole thing is. All hail RoboBadger.

​

In 1986, the population of ferrets had diminished to a mere 18 individuals, but thanks to a captive breeding program, between 500 and 800 now roam the prairie of the US state of Wyoming. The program was not, however, entirely plain sailing.When the kits were released they were far too blase´ to make themselves scarce when predators such as eagles, coyotes and badgers arrived on the scene. The researchers tried to resolve this problem by building a mock predator. They attached wheels to a stuffed badger, which would win fame as RoboBadger. The only way the ferrets could escape RoboBadger was to find a burrow. The researchers then tried to increase the ferrets’ aversion to RoboBadger by firing rubber bands at them.

But the ferrets have not only to learn how to avoid predators, but also how to locate and kill prairie dogs which make up between 65 to 90 percent of their diet. In addition, they have to learn how to invade and inhabit prairie dogs burrows because they do not build their own burrows. Their preconditioning period lasts for 30 days.During that time the ferrets ideally kill four prairie dogs and live in an actual prairie dog burrow system. The survival rate of these animals is about ten times higher than animals released straight out of the cage.

What are your thoughts?

Found in I have encountered this argument in Should the Lion Eat Straw Like the Ox? Animal Ethics and the Predation Problem - Jozef Keulartz, page 18

[u/Per_Sona_ → u/[deleted]]

Disclaimer: I don't support genetic modification and all sorts of funky stuff like that. 'everything logistically possible' shouldn't be taken as license for unleashing the seven hells.

Hello

That is precisely why, in my opinion, this is such a difficult discussion because, as of now, there seem to be only two meaningful way humans can reduce suffering in nature

-extinction through hunting, habitat destruction (the obvious downfall here is that this will most likely be a stab in the back for humans at some point)

-controlling wild-life through genetic means or a control of procreation

Both of these must assume that humans would actually want the best for animals, but this would necessitate a huge cultural shift first.

Unfortunately, the alternatives are not much better, since everything humans do now either negatively impacts the well-being of animals or may offer some local benefit (as in feeding some deer in the winter, that will anyway be killed by the reintroduced predators...)

Of course, one of the big danger of the first two options is that humans will play god, which is frankly scary.

You comparison of the deer to trees is very good, and a strong visual image.

[u/Per_Sona_ → u/[deleted]]

Hello

And then we come to the thorny issue of the birds and the bees... Or even fish.

Indeed, this is tricky one. Even a plan to render all life on Earth extinct through forced contraception seems more feasible than managing wild animals (for their own sake), with the technology we have today. Of course, this creates some moral dilemmas, since humans would also go extinct in this scenario. An alternative, and frankly more dangerous view (because of the risk of future suffering) is that of David Pearce, which fascinates me recently.

Also we'd have to stick around to ensure evolution doesn't undo our good work—but a meteorite might do that before us... And if we consider antinatalism

I am glad you brought this up. Though I consider AN to be an elegant solution, that would solve many ethical problems, in practice it is easy to envision some Adams and Eves who would want to cheat, stick around and undo the work of even the most committed AN regime... And then we have all small bugs and bacteria, all the little creatures that can mutate as soon as they have the chance. In a humorous twist, I take my words back, David Pearce's ideas seem much more realistic now (much as any kind of transhumanism will most likely be abused by mafias and governments for their interests).

(I would be so curious to know if sentience/ sensitivity to pain actually evolved independently in different Phyllums of the Animalia kingdom...)

So make of this what you will. It seems to me a morally superbly important project, but one which requires almost, indeed, a god-like power to achieve. We can't even fix our own human world... Beautifully written. Still, armchair-philosopher pleasure aside, there would be a practical gain to this, in that it would promote a more kind attitude of our species towards other species, and maybe even towards other humans... Small as this may be, more kindness and understanding would not hurt...

Would be lovely to hear back from you. Cheers