Paul Constant makes a very good point here. I call this this zoo theory for captive humans. From an article discussing the health and longevity benefits:
Captive animals are protected from drought, flood, fire, and predators; they are fed regularly; and if injured or exposed to disease, they receive medical attention. This care helps them to live long, healthy lives. However, wild animals do not have these advantages. They live only as long as they are able to defend themselves and find food.(1)
While formerly wild animals have zookeepers looking out for their best interest, we humans have the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government gilding our cages. Being the zookeeper is a great job, with plenty of benefits, especially if the animals in the zoo are occasionally allowed impose their pet initiatives on the other animals. It keeps them feeling “in-control”, and docile. A docile animal makes the life of the zookeeper much easier, and most everyone content!
Of course the docile animals justify the imposition of their initiatives on the other animals “for their own good”, but those of the higher species (at least in their own judgement) actually partner with the zookeepers!
This is the very definition of domestication!
The zookeepers of course know that domesticated animals merely serve to keep the zoo fed and protected— but the illusion of partnership keeps those domesticates in the servile role. Again, making the life of the zookeeper easier, and most everyone content!
No, I would say that persisting this illusion of choice, freedom, and safety, is the best route for everyone, but especially the zookeepers!