That's an interesting idea for a couple of reasons. One, it basically co-signs the idea that we should consider intervening if we believe it will make things "b

That's an interesting idea for a couple of reasons. One, it basically co-signs the idea that we should consider intervening if we believe it will make things "better" in some sense for them. Which is a big thing to agree to and carries big implications. It would imply that we actually should intervene in cases where we judge certain creatures to have "too much" cognitive capability for their own good. You could, for instance, consider alewives to be a canddidate, as they face impossibly long odds of living and high odds of being eaten alive, which probably sucks. As it happens, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea of intervening to help animals in more cases than we currently do, and if I had to guess what one belief we have now that will be regarded as appalling by some future generation, I think this (letting nature run its course when it leads to animals suffering) could be one of them.