They don't. All animals with lacrimal glands cry in response to irritation or physical contact of the eye though. These tears are known as "reflex tears."
It's pretty brave of moths to do this since they are naturally preyed upon by birds. Maybe birds don't mind this activity. Perhaps there's some benefit to the birds too?
To me, nature has his own meaning of suffering and the value of life is intended at whole (think to the ants). Humans are somewhat off this mechanisms, maybe because they can choose to inflict pain. This is the misery of humankind i like to think about, but nature - it is just like it is with no bad or good.
Slowly being disabled in excruciating pain due to a parasite is a bad experience. This can be universally agreed upon. I'd love to hear why this is neither good nor bad without you importing an external dependency like moral relativism or cute idioms like "circle of life."
humans inflict pain for money, mostly. nature does so to be sustainable. I don't believe that any sentient life can exist and thrive without pain. that's part of the beauty of nature. things die. new things come up. it's absolutely bonkers to me how someone could think otherwise. good and bad is a human construct to classify human behavior. nothing would exist if there's no death.
No where in my comment did I associate death with moral badness. Nor did I say that pain in itself is something worthy of eradication.
Suffering can be due to physical pain but not always. Sometimes it is due to lack of freedom. Parasites, bacteria, and viruses generally cause both pain and disability.
Nature is romanticized but like OP states, it is metal and cruel. When we can eradicate suffering through destroying the planet, it is our moral imperative to do so.
So far you have provided no counter arguments to this, instead you have misinterpreted my words and delegated to utterly worthless moral relativism.
destroying the planet will cause unprecedented suffering. so your moral imperative is causing literal Armageddon to stop suffering,, while causing suffering? doesn't seem consistent at all
Death isn't suffering, it's nonexistence. It's possible to obliterate the planet in a blink and annihilate all life on it without causing suffering. It just requires a massive directed energy weapon. ie a death star
so your morality does not consider emotions? what's stopping you from eradicating humans from earth, because our species has disproportionately caused suffering on every other species?
I've made my argument against wild animal suffering and explained why and how we should end it, when we have the ability to do so.
Now you are changing the topic to try to implicate me as anti-human.
Stop and think about how you are debating with ill intentions - how you are trying to invalidate my previous arguments through ad hominem by painting me as someone who would destroy humanity. Extremely disappointing.
What do you have to say about the solution to wild animal suffering other than that some people will be sad?
The only alternative is to eradicate illness and disease in all of the Earth's biomass, which consists largely of sea creatures. We likely won't have the technology to do so for millennia, if ever.
Life is not a gemstone if it is pockmarked with suffering. It is our duty to eradicate suffering by all means necessary. This is why the most progressive countries in the world have legalized euthanasia. Because life is not the goal, happiness is. Death is not an enemy, suffering is.
Feels pretty whimsical to assume that one needs some kind of "right" to do what's right. What gives anyone the right to do anything?
It's a duty as a living being to help those in need. The cornerstone of all science and religion is eliminating suffering.
The logical entailment of such an imperative is to destroy the Earth swiftly after we have moved on. A swift end and none of the creatures on it will suffer, and the ones suffering will suffer no more..
