It is the year 20X6 and you’ve struck it rich somehow and now own a large plot of land in rural Colorado. Apart from a relatively small access road and ranch house, you’ve decided to leave the rest of your property completely undeveloped, as pristine, unspoiled nature.
30 years earlier, scientists developed a small device that, when implanted surgically into animals at birth, would continuously monitor neural signals and stress hormone levels in blood and transmit them wirelessly to a recording device. By using this data, it was possible to develop an objective measure of the amount of suffering an animal was subjected to over the course of their entire lifetime.
Companies like Whole Foods immediately announced purchasing policies that required all of their suppliers to use this technology and an animal suffering rating was to be prominently displayed on each label. Other companies quickly followed suit and meat processors started offering verified humane meat at a premium price point. Soon afterwards, the USDA enacted mandatory suffering labels and set maximum allowable suffering standards for both food production and animal testing.
Recently, scientists have developed an updated version of the device that works through skin contact instead of invasive surgery. Mounted on tiny micro drones the size of a bumblebee, it’s possible to seek out and tag every single living animal within a certain radius. They approach you at your ranch to test out this new invention and you agree to let them try it.
After a 6 month trial, they return with the data along with a computer generated report. At the top of the report, the data points out that there’s a particular patch of uneven rocks near the top of a waterfall that is incredibly slippery and dangerous. Several deer have slipped at this spot and the fall into a crevasse that is just high enough to fatally maim them without killing them outright. Deer which slip at this spot spend several days in absolute agony from multiple broken limbs before slowly dying of starvation. In fact, this spot alone contributes to enough net suffering for your entire ranch that it would be considered above maximum limits if it were a farm. The report also points out that installing a simple plastic guardrail, at an estimated cost of $30 would completely eliminate this problem.
Now, my question is, what would you do with this data? Does the simple fact that you own the land provide you any obligation to the suffering of the animals on it? Does your obligation change in any way based on whether an animal is domesticated or wild? If something as simple as a $30 guardrail could quantifiably ease a huge amount of animal suffering, would it be immoral not to install it? If so, where would you draw the line? In fact, as you look down the list of suggestions, you realize that in order to completely minimize the amount of suffering being inflicted on animals on your land, you essentially would have to turn it into a best practices farm. Does this mean that this is what should be done, not only for your land, but for all of the unspoiled wilderness in the world? Also, although this technology is futuristic, some crude version of the findings it presents could probably be generated now. Does this mean our current generation has any obligation towards reducing suffering of animals in the wild?