The Argument For Suffering Dominance

Most animals die as babies: One of the main arguments for the view that suffering dominates the wild life is that most of the individuals don't survive to adulthood and die as young babies or children. This is due to a reproductive strategy that gives birth to a very large number of offspring, with minimal to no parental care, only a tiny fraction of whom survive. Most animals in nature, and also most vertebrates (fish, amphibian, reptiles, mammals and birds), belong to species with such a reproductive strategy. Therefore, most of those who do not survive die in great suffering for disease, lack of food, predation, etc. This suffering from dying and other negative experiences such as hunger and cold are far greater than the pleasent experiences.

When you think about wild animals, think small:

• Don't think about zebras and lions, think about finger length fish like Bristlemouths (it's a genus, not a species), living in the twilight zone, which is considered the most abundant vertebrates on Earth. Estimates run from hundreds of trillions up to roughly a quadrillion (10^15) individuals. There are more than 100,000 bristlemouths for every single human (and roughly six per human for wild birds, estimated at about 50 billion). If even a tiny moral weight is attached to those small fishes, then 10^15 of them quietly dominates almost any welfare calculation built around charismatic land animals.
• If you think about mammals, there are very roughly 100 billion individuals or more. Rodents and bats make up the large majority.

Convincing? imo, not really.