[ironmagma]

Not quite, I took your logic and simply showed that it leads to the wrong result.

I never said anyone is here to perform a task. That said, I am happier pressing buttons on a machine than I am just lying motionless. It doesn’t matter that the activity is artificial, doing something is by far preferable to doing nothing.

[throwaway67743]

I'm not sure, they spend decades at sea essentially doing nothing, but fulfil their purpose, without performing.

Also if you're happy pushing buttons, you're probably unhappy.

[ironmagma]

I’m glad you can make the statement “if you are happy you’re probably unhappy” because it really solidifies the fact that you think and speak in absurdisms.

If you think orcas are doing nothing at sea, how is that morally different from them doing nothing in a tank?

[throwaway67743]

You missed a crucial part of my comment.

Freedom to roam, even if spending much of their time doing nothing it's still freedom.

[ironmagma]

It’s a tradeoff. Humans are probably better/healthier if we are given freedom to roam the savanna, run miles in every direction. But if that’s the bar for allowing a human to exist, then there won’t be as many humans because the savanna can’t support 7 billion people, especially not with any kind of stability. A single blip in the food supply or weather would lead to a mass die-off.

That’s why we diversified and created towns and cities, artificial, restricted environments that allow life but are not as fun (or possible) to run around, but agriculture makes life a little more guaranteed and predictable. The same is true for orcas. The ocean is great, but it’s also dangerous and volatile. If we create a “town” for orcas it provides support for life at the exchange of freedom. This is hardly different from what we humans put ourselves through.