Is it better for a being to not exist entirely than suffer? If so, then would this imply that if animals suffer even more in the wild that they should be wiped out?

Yes. If you had the choice between having a child that would live its entire life in agony, or not having that child, I think it's obvious which is better.

No. For the same reason that murdering your 4 year old is not ethically equivalent to using birth control.

Should we sterilize animals in the wild since they suffer too, possibly even more than animals in captivity?

why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity? In captivity animals go through hell, tiny living spaces, shit and eat in same place, hormones injected, little freedom. Tons of videos on youtube if you feel like watching some gore.

It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally. Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice. In captivity, we force the choice humans made for them.

Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing.

Many cat adoption centers won't let people adopt cats if they'll let them outside. And those cats are living a better life than squirrels. I disagree with that, but the way I'd put it is, eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right, but with captured animals, well, you noted that they're injected with hormones. That doesn't make the animals unhappy. I think you should concentrate on what the animal's mental state is, and not get distracted by aesthetics.

>eating wild animals (modulo overfishing) is unquestionably morally right

How did you come to that conclusion?

I don't think it's anywhere close to "unquestionably".

I didn’t use “unquestionably” in any sense which is obviously false, like, say, some sense that would imply I’m unaware of vegans. I came to that conclusion by gut instinct.

By that criteria, I can't say pets necessarily have a better life, either.

> why would animals in wild suffer more than in captivity?

Not necessarily more in every case but they do suffer in many different ways. Nonhuman animals in the wild are routinely exposed to: starvation, dehydration, disease, injuries, predation, parasitism and extreme weather conditions:

> The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.

– Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

> It's not about taking suffering away. Animals born in the wild live their life naturally.

A "natural" life does not necessarily mean a good one.

> Animals created by us in farms are raised for one thing, for human consumption. If an animal wants to run away in wild and do it's thing, it has that choice.

The choice to do what? The vast majority of nonhuman animals receive no help with their suffering. There are exceptions of course like when we help by rescuing trapped animals, vaccinating and healing injured and sick animals, caring for orphaned animals etc. But the general rule is a very short life (most nonhuman animals in the wild don't live to adulthood) with far more suffering experienced than happiness.

> Basically if we have slightest amount of empathy for our pets and are willing to apply that to other animals, eating meat doesn't look enticing

No disagreement here, but the same empathy should be given to nonhuman animals suffering in the wild and we should help to reduce their suffering as much as practically possible. Widespread interventions aren't practical now due to a lack of knowledge and resources but our future descendants may well be in a better position to make an effective difference.

Further reading:

* https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani...

* https://www.animal-ethics.org/wild-animal-suffering-section/...

* http://www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofW...

The answer to the existence question depends on what you consider to be more valuable: life or suffering.

As to the second question, that is an active topic of research:

https://foundational-research.org/the-importance-of-wild-ani...

with some info on Wikipedia as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_animal_suffering#Ecology_...

If avoiding suffering is categorically more important than living, then since all living things suffer, the logical conclusion is that all life should be wiped out.

From my perspective, the conclusion seems to be wrong, and thus I deny the first premise.

The question can be formulated in a couple of ways: how much suffering outweighs the benefits of living?

Or, is there an amount of happiness that outweighs some amount of suffering? Among utilitarians, that's one of the major differences.

Your argument is valid and has been made before, and the answers are varied:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism#The_be...

I find this conundrum fascinating and during a deep dive into obscure corners of Youtube I discovered there is a number of people that carried this logic throughout. They are called "life extinctionists". They indeed believe that life is suffering and thus it would be a net positive if all life went extinct. You may have thought the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" was fringe but this is so outrageous it becomes interesting to understand the logic. I can't find more links at the moment.

The debate between living vs avoiding suffering has very important implications for artificial life, artificial consciousness, artificial intelligence, and even space colonization and curing aging.

And if not, does that mean we should ban contraceptives?

Not getting the connection here. I don't think contraceptives are used to prevent the existence of a child living a life of suffering. They seem most often used to avoid inconvenience on the side of the potential parents.

One could argue that billions of children have no chance to exist because of contraceptives, just as you argue that billions of animals have no chance to exist if we stopped breeding them.

Oh I see, if existence is worthwhile, even in the face of suffering, then contraceptives are preventing something worthwhile. Yes, the logic applies here too.

And, it raises an interesting question about the moral gravity of preventing existence.

If they don't exist they can't be harmed by not being brought into existence; since there is no one there to suffer a deprivation.