Hi all, I am a doctoral researcher from the University of Turku in Finland. I am starting an online investigation on the Human-horse relationship and the interlink between human personality, attachment theory and the horse environment.

We are looking for horse owners world wide to respond to our survey.

https://link.webropol.com/s/humanhorsesurvey

Thank you for your help.

https://preview.redd.it/zcluwfoeu9cb1.jpg?width=791&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6c65a5b4f3cc0a668f619f5c1326ebdcce7a2ea

hello! i would really love it if you could all (uk residents only) take my dissertation survey on animal welfare being taught in schools:

https://forms.office.com/e/ZhDReyUdmk

tysm <3

Dear welfarebiology subreddit,

I'm well aware there already is another major crisis currently. Nonetheless - due to my only recent realization on this message's subject matter - I'd like to use this contact opportunity in an attempt to raise awareness of what I'm by science convinced of being the ethically most important subject for all of humanity's future, due to its inherent immense risk for the future of sentient beings in general: Natural & especially Directed Panspermia. And I think this topic deserves far more serious care and attention, especially from the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA). Further insightful elaboration & scientific sources on the topic can be found on the Center on Long-Term Risk's page on the importance of wild animal suffering.

Claim: The existence of past & recent projects alike the Venera 7, Pioneer 10 & Huygens spacecraft missions, 21 Mars lander or rover (including Curiosity & Perseverance rover) missions like InSight & Tianwen-1 as well as the Enceladus Explorer, Europa Lander, Gan De, Uranus Orbiter & Probe, Laplace-P, Enceladus Orbilander, and Neptune Odyssey missions and BioSentinel, Project Starlight, Breakthrough Starshot & the Genesis Project strongly indicate that there is no prohibition of Directed Panspermia currently in the United Nation's Outer Space Treaty, which I think - at least until sufficient research and ethical evaluations are done, which admittedly may take decades or centuries even - is desperately needed & of imperative importance. However, a fast development of a global, international, emotionally intelligent consensus on voluntary self-restraint in regards to Directed Panspermia type projects, out of respect & care for how riskfully consequential such projects can be, may be even safer and hence preferable.

To be questioned & investigated rationale for this claim: The topic is too vast & complex for me to concisely elaborate on all potentially relevant aspects (that I'm aware of) of it in here, so I'd like to summarize the main points of my & others' concerns: If we take earth's historical evolution of life as reference point for orientation & if there is plausible reason to assume that the majority of prehistoric life - by means of the widespread presence of pain-receptors & some forms of sentience - was not only, but also filled with suffering of therein involved many billions of species each consisting of many animals at any given time across a few billions of years, and to the extent to which this may all in all amount to unutterable extents of misery, then even if it is the case for earth that humanity is for the foreseeable future the only - and thereby critically important - species capable of finally turning this otherwise possibly almost endless misery into an overall pleasant existence e.g. using lab-grown meat and technological breakthroughs alike it, it still remains to be uncovered if even just locally this misery can in any form be compensated for, and there's no guarantee. Now, if there is reason to believe that one can generalize or extrapolate from earth's case to a sufficient variety of exoplanets (or celestial bodies in general), especially if it cannot even ever be ensured that colonies on exoplanets would treat the topic of Directed Panspermia carefully themselves or that their own presence as caretakers is ensured to hold sufficiently long compared to any introduced primitive life forms, this may constitute a strong argument against rushing developments towards such projects.

As reminder: The climate, biological and nuclear and chemical threats, autonomous A.I., microplastic, and other topics - in our history, humanity had to learn after mistakes were already made, which often times turned into burdens that later generations had to carry. While for these cases the - still devastating - consequences may be more limited in scope, I think when it's about the cosmos, it'd be wiser to approach this matter in a more reluctant, mindful manner, with long-term foresight, and without forgetting about ethics. Power & knowledge demands responsibility in its use, and it cannot be allowed for anyone to play god with exoplanets by kick-starting evolution of life there. And just because the universe contains so far uninhabited but habitable hells, this doesn't mean we should even just infinitesimally risk populating them, especially in those instances in which they are so far away that it is utterly impossible to control what happens there. Contamination of celestial bodies with rapidly exponentially in numbers growing multi-cellular microbes would constitute a forever irreversible point of no return, especially for those several near-future missions aiming at those moons estimated to be most capable of allowing life on them & therefore carrying the highest contamination risks: Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, Triton. As reference, even the microbes on the ISS eventually started to for their metabolism consume the cleaning substances meant for sterilization. And according to John Grunsfeld, the associate administrator of NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Mars already has been contaminated with microbes by accident.

Also, on the topic of Fermi's Paradox, it might be worthwhile considering the plausibility of the following hypothetical explanation:

=== Ethical explanation ===

It is possible that ethical assessment of general forms of evolution of life in the universe constitutes the central issue which intelligent alien species' macroscopic decision-making, such as for the topic of natural [[panspermia]], [[directed panspermia]], [[space colonization]], [[megastructures]], or [[self-replicating spacecraft]], revolves around. If the result of [[utility]] evaluations of enough and sufficiently in time extended initial or lasting portions of expected or prospective cases of evolution is among all other ethically relevant factors the dominant ethical concern of intelligent alien species, and if furthermore a large enough negative expected utility is assigned to sufficiently common forms of expected or prospective cases of evolution, then foregoing directed panspermia, space colonization, the construction of megastructures, sending out self-replicating spacecraft, but also active attempts to mitigate the consequences of interplanetary and interstellar forms of natural panspermia may follow. While in the case of [[space colonization]] it might ultimately stay too uncontrollable to - by technical or educational means - ensure [[settlers]] or emerging [[space colonies]] themselves consistently keep acting in accordance to the awareness of by [[colonizer]] considered major ethical dangers accompanying physical interstellar [[space exploration]], and for the case of interstellar self-replicating spacecraft, due to potential prebiotic substances in [[interstellar clouds]] and exoplanets' atmospheres and soils, it may forever stay impossible to ensure their [[Sterilization (microbiology)|sterility]] to avoid contamination of celestial bodies which may kick-start uncontrollable evolution processes, reasons to forego the creation of a megastructure, even if such may be beneficial to an intelligent alien species and also to some other intelligent alien species imitators, may mainly have psychological origin. Since certain megastructures may be identifiable to be of unnatural, intelligent design requiring origin by foreign intelligent alien species, for as long as the by an intelligent alien species expected number of (especially less experienced or less far developed) from them foreign intelligent alien species capable of identifying their megastructure as such is large enough, the by them rather uncontrollable spectrum of interstellar space endeavor related influences this may have on those foreign intelligent alien species might constitute a too strong ethical deterrence from creating megastructures that are from outer space identifiable as such, until eventually a lasting state of cosmic privacy may be attained by natural or technological means.

​

On the topic of space expansionism, I think there would be books to fill with considerations about it, and I have many (what I think would be) noteworthy informally documented points on the topic, but for now, some of the most important ones that I'd like to forward would be the following. I hope my slight intellectual dishonesty (used as maybe psychologically manipulative means to press on the matter) in using mathematical nomenclature that alludes to the following statements to appear as if they were in a mathematical, absolute sense proven when that isn't quite true can be forgiven, but I genuinely am of the opinion that for the time being, it would be safer, better if humanity were to think of it as proven:

1. Axiom: The ethical importance of an issue increases alongside the number of therein involved sentient lifeforms, the time duration during which they are affected by it, and the vastness of the affected space to the extent to which changes of it affect the lifeforms.

2. Extremal case: By the above statement set abstract general standard, according to the current body of humanity's knowledge, general forms of evolution of life (if on earth or on exoplanets) forever constitute the most ethically important issue to exist in the universe: With billions of species - each with numerous individual lifeforms - together with durations on the scale of billions of years, and spacial extension of at least a whole planet, it dwarfs any other conceivable ethical issue's level of importance.

3. Valuation Axiom for the extremal case: According to many scientific studies, such as by Richard Dawkins, Brian Tomasik, Alejandro Villamor Iglesias, Oscar Horta, pain and suffering dominates over joy for animal wildlife in general forms of Darwinian evolution of life, and therefore - when accumulated across all logically entangled parameters such as duration and count of involved individuals - instances of such forms of evolution of life has to be kept at a minimum in the universe, as there never was and never will be anything that could be more important, to change the conclusion of this Anti-Panspermia-implying directive.

4. Special Cosmos Ethics Theorem: Exoplanet-Wildlife-Development-Control-dependent Anti-Panspermia Directive for Humanity

The current state of the art of scientific evidence and ethics without exception imperatively demands that humanity does NOT engage in outer space activities of kinds that could even just infinitesimally likely risk introducing life to for any kind of lifeforms habitable worlds, for at least as long as humanity's practical capability of controlling the up to astronomically vast consequences of interstellar space projects doesn't sufficiently improve in a for interstellar space endeavors safety guaranteeing, critical manner.

Proof (by contradiction):

This conclusion deductively follows from the concerningly plausible, by many scientific studies supported, Axiom that general animal wildlife - not only as it has been throughout evolution on earth, but on a more general level that would apply to exoplanet life of our biological kind, too - for the vast majority of it is dominated by pain and suffering rather than joy (reference: Center for Long-Term Risk).

Assume the existence of a counter-example:

It could be argued that IF overall worthwhile to exist life on a larger scale were to rely on previous evolutionary animal wildlife's existence and that the former were to safely come from the latter, that THEN it could possibly be better for evolutionary animal wildlife to come into existence than not.

Proof (by Ethical Dominance Principle) of the impossibility of the existence of counter-examples:

However, given that aforementioned, dominant wildlife animal pain and suffering in its amount and hence importance and priority for macro-scale decision-making increases by the duration throughout which such a miserable, in itself unwantable state persists, and that in the case of general forms of evolution of life, we have to expect that it can last for extraordinary long times of what essentially is involuntary, if avoidable unnecessary torture by the banal means of nature's own ruthlessness, namely that it can last for billions of years, and furthermore that these time-spans are unavoidable if it shall lead to intelligent species, we can therefore conclude that the severity of this issue dominates every other to this date conceivable, plausible ethical issue, since all other ethical issues absolutely pale in comparison to the magnitudes of magnitudes by which this central ethical issue overshadows them all, in such a uniquely outstanding way that risking billion years full of suffering for thousands of individuals of at any time billions of wildlife exoplanet animals each can for nothing in the world be a by any standards reasonable sacrifice to make.

Therefore, by humanity's current full body of knowledge, what happens to wildlife animals part of any actual, prospective, or potentially risked to exist instances of evolution of life constitutes the single most dominating, for ethical macro-scale decision-making behavior sole determinant factor of consideration.

Corollary 1.1: Time-Global Anti-Panspermia Directive for Humanity

If humanity is never able or can never be able to safely control exoplanet wildlife's entire development for the purpose of guaranteeing its & all by its own activities potentially emerging foreign exoplanet wildlife's pain-less flourishing, for any exoplanet wildlife risked to emerge or exist as consequence of humanity's outer space activities, then it follows that humanity shall NEVER engage in activities that risk causing such.

2. Central Cosmos Ethics Theorem: General Anti-Panspermia Prime Directive

If the result of wildlife well-being evaluations of enough and sufficiently in time extended initial or lasting portions of expected or prospective cases of evolution of life is generally among all other ethically relevant factors the dominant ethical concern, and if furthermore a large enough unavoidable negative expected wildlife well-being has to be assumed of sufficiently common forms of expected or prospective cases of evolution of life, then imperative necessity of complete prevention of all preventable forms of contamination or panspermia follows.

Corollary 2.1: Anti-Panspermia Directive on local Star System Contamination

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking contamination of a celestial body within the local star system with (not necessarily extremophile) micro-organisms is to be prevented. This includes causing the emergence and spread of micro-organisms on a celestial body of the local star system, potentially followed by eventual interstellar transportation of by it emerging (extremophile) micro-organisms on the celestial body via natural panspermia, such as meteorites entering such celestial body's atmosphere to pick the organisms up and continue towards interstellar space via sling-shot.

Corollary 2.2: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Space-Faring

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking space-faring activities are to be prevented. This includes not only space probes, satellites, solar sails, and light sails but also von-Neumann-Probes (self-replicating Spacecraft), (replicating) seeder ships, and space-faring of individuals where the Anti-Panspermia abiding behavior of them and later generations after them cannot be ensured.

Corollary 2.3: Natural Anti-Panspermia Directive

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable natural litho-panspermia processes are to be prevented. This includes (extremophile) micro-organism transportation methods via space dust, meteorites, asteroids, comets, planetoids, planets, and debris ejected into space upon celestial body collisions.

Corollary 2.4: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Mega-Structures

Any construction of a mega-structure that at least infinitesimally - due to literally far reaching psychological influences - risks contamination or panspermia being risked or pursued via outer space activities from any other - for the detection of such mega-structure in astronomy engaging - alien civilization is to be prevented.

Corollary 2.5: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Super Volcano Eruptions

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable natural super volcano eruptions on a by life inhabited planet that can reach beyond its exosphere are to be prevented, or altered so they safely don't risk contamination or panspermia anymore.

Corollary 2.6: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Space-Flight Infrastructure

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable space-flight infrastructure construction or use is to be prevented, or at least sufficiently restricted, controlled, and regulated.

Corollary 2.7: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Science, Technology, and Knowledge

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable scientific or technological activities or knowledge is to be prevented or irreversibly deleted, or at least sufficiently restricted, controlled, and regulated. This includes solar sail and light sail related technology, science, and knowledge. This may at first glance seem to be excessive, but for comparison, by magnitudes far less in their potential damage severe dual-use technologies are classified & are subject of strict continual control, too.

Corollary 2.8: Anti-Panspermia Directive on (Mass) Psychology

Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable psychological influence is to be prevented, or at least sufficiently restricted. This includes the propagation of news of any astronomical discovery of a bio-signature or techno-signature or celestial body of special interest such as habitable exoplanets.

Remark: The importance of prevention measures for types of panspermia (according to the above general line of reasoning) depends on the level of (lack of) controllability of the potential long-term consequences (in terms of kick-started evolution of life) that may emerge as result from such, and for the purpose of differentiating in a reasonable manner that has this control-related parameter in mind, it makes sense to differentiate between interstellar and interplanetary panspermia, as at least it seems more plausible that interplanetary panspermia - if it were to happen - would be easier and more timely to control (although not necessarily sufficiently controllable).

This would be all. Thank you for reading, and especially in case of interest & understanding.

I have an ethical conundrum on my hands, and I'd love to get the perspective of someone who shares my values (ethical veganism) but has scientific/professional/academic experience with North American wildlife.

Is there anyone here who is an ethical vegan and has the free time and emotional bandwidth to answer some questions and offer advice?

hey guys could you all fill in my small questionnaire (will take around 5 minutes to complete) its on elephants and their welfare in captivity. thank you :)

The main Fertility Control used on large herbivores, PZP, is the membrane from around a pig egg, we have been able to make egg cells and grow them to maturity in labs , are their any other steps needed before humane sourcing of PZP is theoretically possible, or do we just need to apply the research to pig cells.

Hey guys, I am trying to figure out my views towards animal suffering in the wild and what to do about it. First of all, I dont want to offend anyone who might have different views, although I am kind off skeptical to the expression that suffering outweighs pleasure, especially when it is done by using our concepts for life satisfaction. I also like the work done by Groff and Plant in this regard. Anyways, it does not really matter from an ethical perspective, since suffering is something we should deal with anyways.

I can only see one way in which it matters: I can see myself supporting careful research for animal welfare and suffering, but at the same time I feel like I dont want to support the reduction of habitat or ecosystems for different reasons. I have seen support for it from different sides. What do you think about these things?

I can give you some reasons why I dont want to support habitat reduction or the opposition to habitat conservation:

• I think we have reason to believe that more stable or mature ecosystems have a higher rate of k-selected animals (correct me if im wrong) and possible a higher degree of mutual aid in that ecosystem then in less stable or complex ecosystems (even if we would oppose the conservation of forests for example, I dont see how that stops pest species from procreating in the area, with the reason that there would be no species that could possibly have better lifes)
• Also Ecosystems are, as far as I am concerned, needed to sustain the life of all other entities on the planet, including us. Would taking a position against habitat protection not boil down to a position where one is against life in general (im not saying that there are no arguments for this position, I just find myself rather opposed to it for different reasons, one would be because i hold a valuable container view on life). Also, the degradation of ecosystem would be a rather painful way of reducing life, I suppose.
• When talking well being and value, I have another question. How do we value "flourishing" vs "pleasure". Pleasure seems to be mostly relevant in purely hedonistic utilitarian accounts, although a lot of ethicists have different views about that (although suffering is pretty surely in some way a negative thing in all or most of them)
• The uncertainty of the quality of life for animals, or the difference of general mindstates of animals (im NOT denying the amount of pain, im rather questioning how reliable our thoughts on what it is like to live in the wild are. Id like to refer to the accounts for tribal people and there thoughts on alienation from nature)

Again, i do not oppose welfare biology and attempts to help sentient beings. What interests me though, is the stands towards life and natural habitats as a whole. Im interested what you guys think about that, since you probably spent more time researching these subjects. From my normally more ecological perspective, I find the view interesting that we are a part of nature ourselves and could perhaps improve our alienation with nature and the natural process itself by engaging with the suffering that is occuring. Clearing up these doubts will definetly help me to see which organisations and movements I want to support and which I dont.

Sources:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333854101_Does_suffering_dominate_enjoyment_in_the_animal_kingdom_An_update_to_welfare_biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution#:~:text=Mutual%20Aid%3A%20A%20Factor%20of%20Evolution%20is%20a%201902%20collection,and%20anarchist%20philosopher%20Peter%20Kropotkin.&text=Mutual%20Aid%20is%20considered%20a%20fundamental%20text%20in%20anarchist%20communism.

​

edit: valuable container theories:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_55cmhHq3g&list=PLEA18FAF1AD9047B0&index=20

View Poll