Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 333–345 | Cite as

Animal Rights and the Problem of r-Strategists

  • Kyle JohannsenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Wild animal reproduction poses an important moral problem for animal rights theorists. Many wild animals give birth to large numbers of uncared-for offspring, and thus child mortality rates are far higher in nature than they are among human beings. In light of this reproductive strategy – traditionally referred to as the ‘r-strategy’ – does concern for the interests of wild animals require us to intervene in nature? In this paper, I argue that animal rights theorists should embrace fallibility-constrained interventionism: the view that intervention in nature is desirable but should be constrained by our ignorance of the inner workings of ecosystems. Though authors sometimes assume that large-scale intervention requires turning nature into an enormous zoo, I suggest an alternative. With sufficient research, a new form of gene editing called CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) promises to one day give us the capacity to intervene without perpetually interfering with wild animals’ liberties.

Keywords

Animal rights R-strategists Wild animals CRISPR 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at Queen’s University’s “Justice League” research group, the 2015 World Congress of the IVR, the 60th Annual Congress of the Canadian Philosophical Association, and the North American Society for Social Philosophy’s 33rd International Social Philosophy Conference. I’m greatful to the members of my audiences for their comments; as well as to Sue Donaldson, Oscar Horta, Will Kymlicka, and three anonymous reviewers from Ethical Theory and Moral Practice for written comments.

References

  1. Alphey L (2014) Genetic control of mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol 59:205–224. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbault R, Mou YP (1988) Population dynamics of the common wall lizard, Podarcis muralis, in southwestern France. Herpetologica 44:38–47Google Scholar
  3. Bassett AR, Tibbit C, Ponting CP, Liu JL (2013) Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis of drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Cell Rep 4:220–228. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.03.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer P (2010) Golden rice and ‘golden’ crops for human nutrition. New Biotechnol 27:478–481. doi: 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt A (2003) Site specific selfish-genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. P Roy Soc Lond 270:921–928. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burton M, Burton R (Illustrators) (2002) Wall lizard. In: International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. Vol. 20. Pp. 2849–2850Google Scholar
  7. Charo RA, Greely HT (2015) CRISPR critters and CRISPR cracks. Am J Bioeth 15:11–17. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1104138
  8. Charo RA, Greely HT (2015) CRISPR critters and CRISPR cracks. Am J Bioeth 15:11–17. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1104138 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho SW, Kim S, Kim JM, Kim JS (2013) Targeted genome engineering in human cells with the Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol 31:230–232. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen GA (2008) Rescuing justice & equality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen GA (2009) Why not socialism? Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen C, Regan T (2001) The animal rights debate. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowen T (2003) Policing nature. Environ Ethics 25:169–182. doi: 10.5840/enviroethics200325231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunha LC (2015) If natural entities have intrinsic value, should we then abstain from helping animals who are victims of natural processes? Relations 3:51–63. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-001-cunh CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiCarlo JE, Norville JE, Mali P, Rios X, Aach J, Church GM (2013) Genome engineering in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nucleic Acids Res 41:4336–4343. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2011) Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Donaldson S, Kymlicka W (2013) A defense of animal citizens and sovereigns. Law, Ethics, and Philosophy 1:143–160Google Scholar
  18. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome editing with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346:1258096. doi: 10.1126/science.1258096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM (2014) Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife 3:e03401. doi: 10.7554/eLife.03401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Everett J (2001) Environmental ethics, animal welfarism, and the problem of predation: a Bambi lover’s respect for nature. Ethics Environ 6:42–67. doi: 10.1353/een.2001.0005 Google Scholar
  21. Faria C (2015) Disentangling obligations of assistance: a reply to Clare Palmer’s “against the view that we are normally required to assist wild animals”. Relations 3:211–218. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-002-fari CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Faria C, Paez E (eds) (2015) Wild animal suffering and intervention in nature (double special issue). Relations 3Google Scholar
  23. Friedland AE, Tzur YB, Esvelt KM, Colaiácovo MP, Church GM, Calarco JA (2013) Heritable genome editing in C. elegans via a CRISPR-Cas9 system. Nat Methods 10:741–743. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2532 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gantz VM, Bier E (2015) The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science 348:442–444. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa5945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gantz VM, Jasinskiene N, Tatarenkova O, Fazekas A, Macias VM, Bier E, James AA (2015) Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles Stephensi. P Natl Acad Sci 112:E6736–E6743. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521077112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gersbach CA (2014) Genome engineering: the next genomic revolution. Nat Methods 11:1009–1011. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gilabert P (2011) Feasibility and socialism. J Polit Philos 19:52–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00383.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammond A, Galizi R, Kyrou K, Simoni A, Siniscalchi C, Katsanos D, Gribble M, Baker D, Marois E (2016) A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat Biotechnol 34:78–83. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horta O (2010) Debunking the idyllic view of natural processes. Télos 17:73–88Google Scholar
  30. Horta O (2013) Zoopolis, intervention, and the state of nature. Law, Ethics, and Philosophy 1:113–125Google Scholar
  31. Horta O (2015) The problem of evil in nature: evolutionary bases of the prevalence of disvalue. Relations 3:17–32. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-001-hort CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jeschke JM, Gabriel W, Kokko H (2008) r-Strategists/K-Strategists. Encycl Ecol 4:3113–3122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jia H, Wang N (2014) Targeted genome editing of sweet Orange using Cas9/sgRNA. PLoS One 9:e93806. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiang W, Zhou H, Bi H, Fromm M, Yang B, Weeks DP (2013) Demonstration of CRISPR/Cas9/sgRNA-mediated targeted gene modification in Arabidopsis, tobacco, sorghum and rice. Nucleic Acids Res 41:e188. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt780 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jørstad KE, Fjalestad KT, Ágústsson T, Marteinsdottir G (2007) Atlantic cod—Gadus morhua. In: Svåsand T (ed) Genetic impact of aquaculture activities on native Populations. Institute of Marine Research, Bergen, pp. 10–16 http://www.imr.no/genimpact/__data/page/7650/atlantic_cod.pdf (Accessed on July 12th, 2016)Google Scholar
  36. Ladwig B (2015) Against wild animal sovereignty: an interest-based critique of Zoopolis. J Polit Philos 23:282–301. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ledford H (2015a) Biohackers gear up for genome editing. Nature 524:398–399. doi: 10.1038/524398a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ledford H (2015b) CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature 522:20–24. doi: 10.1038/522020a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacArthur RH, Wilson EO (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayo RK, Shepherd G, O’Brien L, Col LA, Traver M (2009) The 2008 assessment of the Gulf of Maine Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) stock. US Department of Commerce. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole. http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0903/crd0903.pdf Accessed 12 July 2016
  41. McMahan J (2010) The meat eaters. New York Times OpinionatorGoogle Scholar
  42. Nagel T (1991) War and massacre. In: Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 53–74Google Scholar
  43. Ng YK (1995) Towards welfare biology: evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering. Biol Philos 10:255–285. doi: 10.1007/BF00852469 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nussbaum MC (2007) Frontiers of justice. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer C (2010) Animal ethics in context. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Palmer C (2015) Against the view that we are normally required to assist wild animals. Relations 3:203–210. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-002-palm CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peden JA (1999) Vegetarian cats & dogs, 3rd edn. Harbingers of a New Age, TroyGoogle Scholar
  48. Pianka ER (1970) On r- and K-selection. Am Nat 104:592–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  51. Ross WD (1930) What makes right acts right? In: The right and the good. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Reprinted in: SM Cahn and JG Haber (eds) (1995) Twentieth century ethical theory. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp. 87–105Google Scholar
  52. Simmons A (2009) Animals, predators, the right to life, and the duty to save lives. Ethics Environ 14:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singer P (1975) Animal liberation. Avon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Sözmen Bİ (2013) Harm in the wild: facing non-human suffering in nature. Ethic Theory and Moral Prac 16:1075–1088. doi: 10.1007/s10677-013-9416-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sugano SS, Shirakawa M, Takagi J, Matsuda Y, Shimada T, Hara-Nishimura I, Kohchi T (2014) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in the liverwort Marchantia polymorpha L. Plant Cell Physiol 55:475–481. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcu014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tomasik B (2015) The importance of wild animal suffering. Relations 3:133–152. doi: 10.7358/rela-2015-002-toma CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Upadhyay SK, Kumar J, Alok A, Tuli R (2013) RNA-guided genome editing for target gene mutations in wheat. G3 3:2233–2238. doi: 10.1534/g3.113.008847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Varner G (1998) Can animal rights activists be environmentalists? In: In Nature’s interests? Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 98–120Google Scholar
  59. Vegan cats (2016) Cruelty free alternatives for cats & dogs! URL: http://www.vegancats.com/ (Accessed on July 12th)
  60. Vitt LJ, Caldwell JP (2009) Herpetology: an introductory biology of amphibians and reptiles, 3rd edn. Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of PhilosophySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations