All of barryl 🔸's Comments + Replies

Let's examine the conceptual, ethical, and philosophical issues raised in your comment, exploring some lesser-discussed nuances that are critical to understanding the intersections between conservation, zoonotic diseases, wild animal suffering, and the broader implications for effective altruism (EA) frameworks. The Ethical Tensions in Conservation and Wild Animal Suffering At the core of your critique lies an unresolved tension between two approaches that might seem compatible on the surface—conservation and animal welfare—but actually embody divergent ethical and philosophical orientations. Conservation, traditionally, is motivated by a biocentric or ecocentric ethic. Its primary concern is the integrity, stability, and resilience of ecosystems and the intrinsic value of biodiversity. From this perspective, ecosystem manipulation—even if it aims to alleviate suffering—is problematic because it violates the underlying principles of respecting natural processes and ecological wholeness. This is a teleological view, in which ecosystems are seen to have an inherent "goodness" or purpose that ought to be preserved. Philosophers like Aldo Leopold, Holmes Rolston III, and Arne Naess have emphasized the intrinsic value of ecological systems, advocating for non-interference as a form of respect for the natural world’s autonomy and self-regulating capacities. On the other hand, the animal welfare approach, particularly as endorsed by wild animal suffering programs, is largely rooted in a utilitarian or consequentialist framework that prioritizes the reduction of suffering above all else. This ethical stance places the individual sentient being at the center of moral concern, regardless of its place in a larger ecological network. Hence, ecosystem manipulation, such as predator control or even more extreme interventions like habitat alteration to reduce suffering, could be justified if the net suffering of sentient beings is decreased. What is particularly fascinating her