[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.