Risk Aversion In Wild Animal Welfare

The number of wild animals far surpasses that of humans and domesticated animals. For instance, while there are approximately 8.1 billion people globally, marine arthropods like krill and crabs number around 100 quintillion. Therefore, organizations aiming to maximize their impact on animal welfare may find it justified to pursue ethical interventions for wild animals.

In this report, Rethink Priorities describes wild animal welfare as offering a high “expected value.” Expected value refers to the sum of the values of possible outcomes in a scenario, weighted by the probabilities of those outcomes occurring. In the context of animal welfare, expected value is derived from the number of wild animals affected by an intervention and the extent to which their welfare is improved.

However, those capable of intervening on behalf of wild animals are often risk-averse, meaning that high expected value alone may not be enough to justify putting many resources towards a specific action. Risk aversion is rooted in a reluctance to embrace uncertainty. If proposed interventions conflict with a stakeholder’s risk tolerance, they may choose not to act. Therefore, to implement effective wild animal welfare interventions, it’s crucial to align choices with risk attitudes, identifying specific actions that are more likely to resonate with risk-averse people.

Risk aversion in wild animal welfare often arises from concerns that current interventions might be ineffective or even harmful. For example, efforts to save animals from natural disasters or vaccinate them against disease may initially seem beneficial. However, releasing these animals back into the wild, where they could face predation or other dangers, complicates expected value calculations. Moreover, such small-scale interventions are often not cost-effective, at least not currently. Expanding these efforts to a larger, systemic overhaul of wild animal conditions introduces more uncertainty, exacerbating risk aversion — a phenomenon known as “complex cluelessness.”

Given the vast number of wild animals and the urgency of their situations, overcoming complex cluelessness and taking action is essential. Reducing risk aversion can help stakeholders manage uncertain outcomes. Three types of risk aversion should be considered: (1) outcome risk aversion, which focuses on avoiding “worst-case scenario” outcomes; (2) difference-making risk aversion, which evaluates whether inaction might be as effective as action; and (3) ambiguity aversion, which stems more from a lack of knowledge than from risk itself. To address all three types of risk aversion, stakeholders must be offered options that enhance “risk-aversion robustness.”

The report argues that high robustness corresponds with high “choiceworthiness” — meaning that wild animal welfare interventions with robust characteristics are more likely to reduce risk aversion and encourage stakeholder participation. However, few current recommendations meet the robustness criteria necessary to address all three types of risk aversion simultaneously. Outcome risk aversion generally favors welfare for “abundant” species, while difference-making risk aversion often prioritizes farmed animal welfare over wild animal welfare due to perceived differences in sentience. Ambiguity aversion tends to support farmed animal interventions while advocating for research in uncertain areas, such as the sentience of various wild animals.

Where these three modes of risk aversion converge, however, is in certain preferred intervention characteristics. They agree that wild animal suffering should be reduced without significantly altering wild animal populations. They also concur that, from a public relations standpoint, interventions that might be perceived as controversial should be avoided.

Ultimately, identifying which theories and practices in animal ethics align with each type of risk aversion is essential for guiding effective interventions. This may seem like heady stuff for the average animal advocates — but even such seemingly theoretical conversations can have broad, real-world implications.