Editing wildlife

Paper

1. Follow all instructions
2. Adhere to the honor code
3. Making objections 
• relevant to all three types of papers
• don't just "use Singer against Regan" or "use Regan against Singer"
• come up with your own objections
• better to make a FEW objections FULLY, not make a large number
• read very, very carefully...take notes...go for a walk ... and objections will occur to you
• Develop the objection--
• clarify, restate, elaborate
• support with facts, if relevant
• make an analogy
• strengthen by considering what author would say
• etc.

_________________________ 

Recap

Assisting wild animals (two basic approaches)

1. Laissez faire--intervene in C situations, rarely D, one-off solutions; based on respect for "wild sovereignty" (D&K); based on responsibility (Palmer)
2. Interventionists -- intervene in C & D, possibly large-scale; based on moral status of individual animals, equal consideration of interests
• Conventional intervention
• Gene-editing intervention (Johannsen)

_________________________

Kyle Johannsen, "Humanitarian assistance for wild animals" and Wild Animal Ethics, chapter 5. Also interview.

STEP 1: There is vast wild animal suffering

STEP 2: We should intervene to reduce the suffering; large-scale solutions involving gene drives should be considered seriously.

_________________________

WORKBOOK

Interview: Johanssen on “bottlenecks” and objections

1. Survivor bias

2. Underestimation of number of wild animals

3. "Natural is good"

4. Religion

5. Conservation goals--healthy ecosystems, restoration, species preservation, NOT individual animal welfare

 

Chap 5: Gene drives vs. conventional aid: why gene drives are better!

1. Gene drives--release edited animals, then no further interference
2. Conventional aid -- must intervene over and over again, so more interference
• protect prey from predators
• vaccinate against diseases, medicate
• rescue and rehabilitate after natural disasters
• restore habitat after natural disasters

_____________________

Debate topics:

1. Should we use gene drives to prevent wild animal suffering?
• Yes, Johanssen is right
• No
2. Should we be laissez faire or interventionist about wild animal suffering? 
• laissez faire--mainly intervene when humans are responsible (C cases)
• interventionist--also intervene when humans are not responsible (D cases)...but could restrict intervention to conventional means
3. What is wrong with Johanssen's view?
• A - wild animal suffering not vast
• B - nature should remain natural
• C - the interventions won't work
• D - only the whole ecosystem matters, not each individual animal
• E - other