Refering to choices: don't we have a choice to intervene and prevent the suffering if sentient beings? (Hypothetically, if it were practicable).
Actually, we do intervene where practical. Here are some of the ways:
Animals face significant harms in the wild. Fortunately, though, there are many ways we can help them, but we need to raise awareness about this.
As far as predation, we don't have the technology to do something about that one across the board without causing ecosystem collapse but in the future we will be able to do more than we can currently, and for now, there are ways to tweak things for less suffering. One way is to engineer less r-selected animals being born in an area, most of whom would be destined to be eaten alive before reaching adulthood. This tweaking can be done in some areas, such as an area that is going to be rewilded for example. There is no sense in rewilding an area in a way that will cause the maximum suffering, and by having vegetation in an area that favors K-selected herbivores over r-selected, you can get a more favorable outcome.
WAS is a really unpolular topic in the vegan communuty. This is unfortunate because it creates a gaping hole in animal rights theory where an omnivore can say, and they do all the time: "If animals matter morally we should be helping wild animals who are suffering and dying". The answer needs to be "we help wild animals as much as we possibly can with the knowledge and resources we have available to us right now and welfare biology is progressing every year" . The answer should not be "nature is none of our business. We need to just get out of its way and let it do its thing." That used to be my view but now I see it is not right. I brought this up before:
I used to think domesticated animals do not understand the world they live in but that wild animal do. For instance, a dog or cat may not understand the danger of chewing on electrical wires, or the danger that moving vehicles present to them, or the danger of getting out of the house and...