 So here's another idea, this is kind of dangerous, right? So those of us who eat meat often justify doing so by appeal to this notion that humans have a kind of moral status that animals don't have. And the reason why humans have this moral status, which means that we have rights not to be used in these kind of ways, has to do with the sorts of rational capacities that we have, the variety of our consciousness, as contrasted with the level of consciousness that animals have and the kinds of rational capacities that they have. And that's thought to give us justification for treating them in a certain way. So now suppose we think about space exploration. We start to sort of expand our sense of the limits of what's possible for sentient beings. Now, one way to think about this is to think. Suppose we encounter extraterrestrial beings, okay? That's obviously again a bit sci-fi, but it's clearly something that you have to consider as a possibility. But another, I guess, more or less remote possibility is that if we're going to engage in space exploration, we're going to have to develop artificial intelligences that far exceed what they're currently capable of. It would have to be something in the realm of artificial general intelligence. This is basically because the magnitude of the distance between the earth and the sort of anywhere beyond the solar system was just so great that there's no way to create kind of, to sustain biological life for the duration of a journey from here to there, even if it were possible to get from here to there. But it could be possible to generate artificial intelligences that were able to sustain themselves through that kind of journey. So what you're going to have is other sentient beings in the universe with potentially significantly higher rational capacities than humans. So if it's the case that we're permitted to meet because animals have lesser rational capacities than humans, if we then imagine the existence of creatures with higher rational capacities than us, would they be able to treat us as tools in the way it seems to be permissible for us to treat animals? And again, you can take this as a reductio ad absurdum. You can say, OK, well, then that obviously shows that we shouldn't be eating meat. Or you can use it as a reason to kind of think through more about the underlying moral theory. Maybe the notion is that any entity that has a sufficient level of rational capacity gets a certain set of moral protections. And being well above that level doesn't necessarily mean that you get to kind of abuse those who do cross it, though, to a lower degree than you.