I am curious how space habitats like O'Neill cylinders compare and contrast with a terraformed planet (e.g. Mars) in regards to animal welfare. I currently would guess that space habitats are better because they offer a more controlled environment due to greater surveillance as well human proximity, whereas an ecosystem on a planet would by and large be unmanaged wilderness, potentially multiplying how much wild animal suffering exists. However, space habitats could offer a lot more efficiency in creating total biomass, which could enable more total suffering (or more eudaimonia) than on planets.
I think this has potential to be a crucial consideration with regard to our space colonization strategy, if we can determine which method creates more wellbeing with some confidence, and we can tractably influence on the margin whether humanity chooses one or the other. e.g. SpaceX wants to colonize Mars whereas BlueOrigin wants to build O'Neill cylinders, so answering this question may imply supporting one company over the other.
My Answer Guidelines: In an ideal answer I would like to see a detailed quantitative Fermi guesstimate of how planets vs habitats could compare on welfare, followed by any qualitative considerations that would affect the comparison. A low-quality answer to me would only just be one that doesn't try to put a number range to its level of uncertainty. But please don't hesitate to write a bad Answer and then adjust it later; many people write things as comments when they should be answers, out of unnecessary modesty. We don't know the right answer yet, so take this in whatever direction you'd like. Don't just defer to whoever gave a prestigious answer, I want to see your thinking no matter how sloppy; it's a public good! Do not factor in human welfare or artificial sentience welfare, which will complicate things. My guess is that artificial sentience may dominate, but due to wild uncertainty that is its own area of investigation.