I really like Our World in Data (OWID), and often check/use its data. However, it seems to me that many articles from OWID implicitly argue that nature conservation is good. I think this may well be the case, but more nuance is needed, as it is unclear whether wild animals have good/bad lives (and the same arguably applies to non-animal beings like plants).
Should Our World in Data discuss wild animal welfare in the context of nature conservation? For reference, there are no instances of animal “welfare” or “wellbeing” in the following OWID’s articles on biodiversity (there are more, but I did not check them):
- To protect the world’s wildlife we must improve crop yields – especially across Africa.
- Living Planet Index: what does an average decline of 69% really mean?.
- FAQs on the Living Planet Index.
- Wild mammals are making a comeback in Europe thanks to conservation efforts.
- Wild mammals have declined by 85% since the rise of humans, but there is a possible future where they flourish (only 1 instance of “human wellbeing”).
I also searched for “wild animal welfare” on OWID’s website, but only got 2 results for farmed “animal welfare”. Even if data about wild animal welfare is scarce, I think it would still be good to at least briefly mention it in some articles discussing wild life.