Crosspost from https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2025/03/11/how-to-systematically-reduce-wild-animal-suffering-in-the-near-future/

 

Reducing wild animal suffering is not easy. We need to do more scientific research on how to safely and effectively reduce wild animal suffering (by supporting organizations like Wild Animal Initiative). However, many people who care about wild animal welfare, are impatient and do not want to wait until we have invented technologies to reduce wild animal suffering. For those people, is there something specific that they can do or that they can support right now? 

Perhaps they can support organizations that directly help wild animals, such as wildlife rescue centers. However, those wildlife rescue centers also help and release predators that are going to harm other wild animals. And suppose one helps starving wild animals by feeding them. If those animals survive, they can reproduce and increase the population of animals, resulting in more competition for food. Eventually some of those newborn animals will die of starvation, or will suffer from diseases or killed in other ways. 

Offering direct help to wild animals provides short-term benefits (for the animals that are helped), but in the longer term (a few years) it faces a waterbed effect: pushing down animal suffering at one place pushes up animal suffering at other places, such that the total amount of animal suffering remains constant. Direct help is like pushing on a waterbed, whereas systematically reducing wild animal suffering is like reducing the amount of water in the waterbed by putting a leak in the bed. But with most currently available and common methods (used at wildlife rescue centers for example), it is not possible to systematically reduce wild animal suffering. 

The waterbed effect of wild animal suffering is basically due to the constant, high reproduction rates of wild animals. As populations cannot grow to infinity, the mortality rate is in the long run always higher than or equal to the reproduction rate. A high reproduction rate (number of newborn offspring per adult couple per year) always results in a high mortality rate (number of animals dying per thousand animals per year), and we can expect that a high mortality rate positively correlates with animal suffering: if animals are dying at higher rates, their lives are expected to be more miserable. 

This insight offers us a clue for systematic solutions to decrease wild animal suffering. First, we can reduce the reproduction rates of wild animals by using wildlife fertility control methods (by supporting organizations like FYXX Foundation). More cost-effective methods of wildlife fertility control, using biotechnology such as gene drives, are at the moment not feasible and too controversial. 

But instead of wildlife fertility control, we can reduce the average reproduction rate of all wild animals, by a method that is accepted by environmentalists, supported by conservationists and favored by animal welfarists because it involves a kind of direct help to animals. The idea is to help and protect large herbivores. Those animals kill fewer animals than predators (omnivores and carnivores), and they typically have lower reproduction rates than small animals. An adult mare gives birth to ten to twenty foals over her life, which is much lower than the reproduction rate of for example a rabbit. As those animals are large, they are fewer in numbers and can more easily be spotted compared to small animals. That means conventional wildlife fertility control methods such as immunocontraception can be more easily and cost-effectively applied to those large herbivores.

By helping large herbivores, we select for ecosystems that contain relatively more animals with lower reproduction rates and hence less animal suffering. The average reproduction rate of all wild animals in an ecosystem is lower when the ecosystem contains more large herbivores. 

There are already a few organizations that focus on providing help to large herbivores. In terms of their cost-effectiveness to reduce wild animal suffering, we should not only consider the direct help that they provide to the large herbivores, but also the indirect benefit of creating ecosystems with lower average animal reproduction rates. The benefits and hence the cost-effectiveness of their direct help to animals may be low and may be much lower than the cost-effectiveness of animal charities that focus on reducing farmed animal suffering (especially the suffering of farmed chickens, fish and shrimp), but the indirect benefits in terms of changing ecosystem functioning and lowering the overall mortality rate by lowering the reproduction rate, can be huge. 

Here are seven examples of animal charities that may be the most effective to systematically reduce wild animal suffering in the short term, as they prioritize helping large herbivores (horses, donkeys, bison, elephants, rhinos, kangaroos, manatees,…) and hence indirectly conserve and protect ecosystems with lower animal suffering rates:

Note that from a longtermist perspective, it would be better to invest now in scientific research to find the most cost-effective ways to decrease wild animal suffering that can be applied in the long, far future. Considering far future wild animal suffering, donations to Wild Animal Initiative will be the most impactful. The abovementioned seven charities are the most impactful charities from a neartermist perspective that prioritizes immediate reductions in wild animal suffering over long term reductions.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Very interesting post, as is often the case with you. Insightful and pragmatic. However, I feel like a closer investigation on charities that effectively ensure that large herbivores are helped. It's plausible that broader conservationist initiatives which have only part of their focus on wild herbivores could still have a larger effects than smaller charities that seem to work mostly at the individual level. In any case, I think it's likely that you're right, and if you are, it would be very interesting to see where donations are most likely to effectively increase the population of large herbivores. Do you currently have any idea of the potential effectiveness of those organizations ?

Good question! I have no idea.

A problem with broader conservationist initiatives is that they more likely support interventions that could increase wild animal suffering, e.g. by helping predator species or species with high reproduction rates.

Interesting idea! Thanks for sharing it :)

I realised that there are some points in this reasoning that are not clear to me:

  • How would protecting large herbivores reduce the population of animals with high reproduction rates?
  • What would be the impact on insects?
  1. small herbivorous animals with high reproduction rates compete for food with large herbivores. A large herbivore captures more of the plant biomass than a small animal, and consequently large herbivores prevent large populations of small herbivores.
  2. Good question: it is unsure. Problem with large animals is that they more likely accidentally kill (trample) small insects. That might be a good thing is the reproduction rates of insects are so high that they have net-negative welfare levels. The large herbivore reduces the population sizes of the insects that have lives not worth living. An advantage of the large animals in grasslands, is that their manure attracts dung beetles, and the flowers in the grassland attract bees. Now, dung beetles and bees are the best, kindest or nicest kinds of insects: they do not hunt and kill other insects, they are not parasites, they do not compete much for food with other animals, they fertilize the soil and the plants which means more food for other animals, they are highly intelligent and sentient. If you want to help insects, I'd say prioritize helping bees and dung beetles.
Curated and popular this week
Sam Anschell
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
*Disclaimer* I am writing this post in a personal capacity; the opinions I express are my own and do not represent my employer. I think that more people and orgs (especially nonprofits) should consider negotiating the cost of sizable expenses. In my experience, there is usually nothing to lose by respectfully asking to pay less, and doing so can sometimes save thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per hour. This is because negotiating doesn’t take very much time[1], savings can persist across multiple years, and counterparties can be surprisingly generous with discounts. Here are a few examples of expenses that may be negotiable: For organizations * Software or news subscriptions * Of 35 corporate software and news providers I’ve negotiated with, 30 have been willing to provide discounts. These discounts range from 10% to 80%, with an average of around 40%. * Leases * A friend was able to negotiate a 22% reduction in the price per square foot on a corporate lease and secured a couple months of free rent. This led to >$480,000 in savings for their nonprofit. Other negotiable parameters include: * Square footage counted towards rent costs * Lease length * A tenant improvement allowance * Certain physical goods (e.g., smart TVs) * Buying in bulk can be a great lever for negotiating smaller items like covid tests, and can reduce costs by 50% or more. * Event/retreat venues (both venue price and smaller items like food and AV) * Hotel blocks * A quick email with the rates of comparable but more affordable hotel blocks can often save ~10%. * Professional service contracts with large for-profit firms (e.g., IT contracts, office internet coverage) * Insurance premiums (though I am less confident that this is negotiable) For many products and services, a nonprofit can qualify for a discount simply by providing their IRS determination letter or getting verified on platforms like TechSoup. In my experience, most vendors and companies
jackva
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
 [Edits on March 10th for clarity, two sub-sections added] Watching what is happening in the world -- with lots of renegotiation of institutional norms within Western democracies and a parallel fracturing of the post-WW2 institutional order -- I do think we, as a community, should more seriously question our priors on the relative value of surgical/targeted and broad system-level interventions. Speaking somewhat roughly, with EA as a movement coming of age in an era where democratic institutions and the rule-based international order were not fundamentally questioned, it seems easy to underestimate how much the world is currently changing and how much riskier a world of stronger institutional and democratic backsliding and weakened international norms might be. Of course, working on these issues might be intractable and possibly there's nothing highly effective for EAs to do on the margin given much attention to these issues from society at large. So, I am not here to confidently state we should be working on these issues more. But I do think in a situation of more downside risk with regards to broad system-level changes and significantly more fluidity, it seems at least worth rigorously asking whether we should shift more attention to work that is less surgical (working on specific risks) and more systemic (working on institutional quality, indirect risk factors, etc.). While there have been many posts along those lines over the past months and there are of course some EA organizations working on these issues, it stil appears like a niche focus in the community and none of the major EA and EA-adjacent orgs (including the one I work for, though I am writing this in a personal capacity) seem to have taken it up as a serious focus and I worry it might be due to baked-in assumptions about the relative value of such work that are outdated in a time where the importance of systemic work has changed in the face of greater threat and fluidity. When the world seems to
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Forethought[1] is a new AI macrostrategy research group cofounded by Max Dalton, Will MacAskill, Tom Davidson, and Amrit Sidhu-Brar. We are trying to figure out how to navigate the (potentially rapid) transition to a world with superintelligent AI systems. We aim to tackle the most important questions we can find, unrestricted by the current Overton window. More details on our website. Why we exist We think that AGI might come soon (say, modal timelines to mostly-automated AI R&D in the next 2-8 years), and might significantly accelerate technological progress, leading to many different challenges. We don’t yet have a good understanding of what this change might look like or how to navigate it. Society is not prepared. Moreover, we want the world to not just avoid catastrophe: we want to reach a really great future. We think about what this might be like (incorporating moral uncertainty), and what we can do, now, to build towards a good future. Like all projects, this started out with a plethora of Google docs. We ran a series of seminars to explore the ideas further, and that cascaded into an organization. This area of work feels to us like the early days of EA: we’re exploring unusual, neglected ideas, and finding research progress surprisingly tractable. And while we start out with (literally) galaxy-brained schemes, they often ground out into fairly specific and concrete ideas about what should happen next. Of course, we’re bringing principles like scope sensitivity, impartiality, etc to our thinking, and we think that these issues urgently need more morally dedicated and thoughtful people working on them. Research Research agendas We are currently pursuing the following perspectives: * Preparing for the intelligence explosion: If AI drives explosive growth there will be an enormous number of challenges we have to face. In addition to misalignment risk and biorisk, this potentially includes: how to govern the development of new weapons of mass destr