It’s unclear if there would be farmed or “wild” animals in such space settlements.
Thank you for writing this! I want to express my view that in certain cases, such as in space settlements, the line between “wild” or “farmed” animals could blur. If the “wild” (maybe you put the word in quotes for that reason) animals were intentionally brought about, fed, monitored, and managed, what makes them not “farmed”?
Yes, you had expressed this thought in this article (which I link to somewhere in this text) and that’s what influenced me to use quotes. But I still want to differentiate between animals who are farmed for food or other purposes on space settlements, and animals who are freely roaming in spaces created for humans to explore (similar to nature reserves). Perhaps the latter group could be called “managed animals”. For example, in the case of Bernal Sphere, animals would be farmed in a dedicated sector of a space settlement (as you can see in this illustration):
Just for the record, I think that it’s unlikely that animal farming will stick around for millions of years if humans colonize the space with such space settlements, but as you point out in that article, it is possible (e.g., if at least some humans want “authentic” meat).
But I still want to differentiate between animals who are farmed for food or other purposes on space settlements, and animals who are freely roaming in spaces created for humans to explore
Makes sense to separate them for cause prioritization and division of labor. What motivated me to question whether they differ from a philosophical sense is somehow responding to challenges such as naturalistic fallacy, “we should care more about suffering we cause directly than those not caused by us”, etc.
Also, animals might not be only farmed for food. Scientists are looking into growing human organ replacements in animals and producing human drugs cheaper in animals (such as chickens that lay eggs that contain anti-cancer drugs). Also, I don’t think we can be certain that raising animals for experiments, skin/fur, fiber, will all stop at a certain point in the far future. There’s no proof that “biological” (between quotes because I think this is also a category that can be blurred or even dissolve in the future) processes cannot be the most efficient way to produce anything. For example, computers (or maybe better to say: computation).
Thank you for writing this! I want to express my view that in certain cases, such as in space settlements, the line between “wild” or “farmed” animals could blur. If the “wild” (maybe you put the word in quotes for that reason) animals were intentionally brought about, fed, monitored, and managed, what makes them not “farmed”?
Yes, you had expressed this thought in this article (which I link to somewhere in this text) and that’s what influenced me to use quotes. But I still want to differentiate between animals who are farmed for food or other purposes on space settlements, and animals who are freely roaming in spaces created for humans to explore (similar to nature reserves). Perhaps the latter group could be called “managed animals”. For example, in the case of Bernal Sphere, animals would be farmed in a dedicated sector of a space settlement (as you can see in this illustration):
Just for the record, I think that it’s unlikely that animal farming will stick around for millions of years if humans colonize the space with such space settlements, but as you point out in that article, it is possible (e.g., if at least some humans want “authentic” meat).
Makes sense to separate them for cause prioritization and division of labor. What motivated me to question whether they differ from a philosophical sense is somehow responding to challenges such as naturalistic fallacy, “we should care more about suffering we cause directly than those not caused by us”, etc.
Also, animals might not be only farmed for food. Scientists are looking into growing human organ replacements in animals and producing human drugs cheaper in animals (such as chickens that lay eggs that contain anti-cancer drugs). Also, I don’t think we can be certain that raising animals for experiments, skin/fur, fiber, will all stop at a certain point in the far future. There’s no proof that “biological” (between quotes because I think this is also a category that can be blurred or even dissolve in the future) processes cannot be the most efficient way to produce anything. For example, computers (or maybe better to say: computation).
There’s also no proof that non-biological systems have to be outcompeted by biological brains either, so that cancels out.