Human dominion and wild animal suffering

Abstract It may be possible, now or in the future, for humans to technologically intervene reduce amount of suffering experienced by wild animals. There is a debate about whether, if can do this, they should. Here, I consider implications this theological claim that have been granted dominion over other argue it's more plausible interpret as granting (i) responsibility care well-being individual animals than it giving either (ii) right whatever want (iii) only aggregates (such whole species). then show how understanding undermines range arguments against intervening animal suffering. These not stand sort relationship intervention obligatory (or perhaps even permissible). But we possess such dominion, obligatory.