Systemic power asymmetries in human-animal tech interactions: Research critiques zoo-mediated cross-species experiences as extractive

Indigenous epistemologies view animals as subjects with inherent rights and agency, not as tools for human experimentation. The Māori concept of *mauri* (life force) underscores the interconnectedness of all beings, challenging the anthropocentric framing of cross-species tech. Projects like the Māori-led *Whanganui River* legal personhood case demonstrate alternatives to human-animal separation. Western tech interventions often violate these principles by reducing animals to data points in human-centric systems.

Zoos emerged in the 19th century as colonial spectacles, reflecting the same power dynamics that enabled human slavery and land dispossession. The 1970s animal rights movement exposed zoos as sites of suffering, yet the industry rebranded itself as conservation through techno-fixes. Historical parallels include the use of animals in circuses and lab experiments, all justified by 'scientific progress.' The current tech-enabled interactions echo 19th-century ethnographic displays, where marginalized beings were exhibited for human edification.

In Hindu and Buddhist traditions, animals are often revered as divine or enlightened beings, with texts like the *Panchatantra* emphasizing moral lessons from interspecies interactions. African traditions, such as the Yoruba *orisa* system, recognize animals as messengers between humans and the divine, fostering reciprocal relationships. These frameworks contrast with Western utilitarian views that reduce animals to resources or entertainment. Cross-cultural wisdom suggests that true interspecies connection requires humility, not technological mediation.

Neuroscience confirms that animals, including lemurs, experience stress and cognitive overload in unnatural environments like zoos, contradicting claims of 'meaningful connection.' Studies on animal welfare show that forced interactions with humans can induce chronic stress, undermining the purported benefits of tech-enabled experiences. The research cited lacks peer review and relies on anthropomorphic assumptions about animal agency. Scientific consensus prioritizes habitat restoration and rewilding over human-animal interaction as a conservation strategy.

Artists like Joseph Beuys and indigenous creators have long explored interspecies communication through non-verbal, spiritual, and ecological mediums. The *Animal Internet* movement critiques techno-solutionism by advocating for animal-led narratives rather than human-controlled interactions. Spiritual traditions warn against hubris in human-animal relationships, emphasizing reciprocity and non-exploitation. Creative practices, such as animal-inclusive art, often center the animal’s perspective, unlike tech interventions that prioritize human spectacle.

Future scenarios must prioritize rewilding and habitat connectivity over tech-mediated interactions, as climate change exacerbates biodiversity loss. The rise of AI-driven animal tracking could enable non-invasive conservation, but only if divorced from human entertainment. Scenario planning should include indigenous knowledge systems, which have sustained biodiversity for millennia without techno-fixes. The current trajectory risks normalizing animal exploitation under the guise of 'innovation,' requiring urgent ethical and policy interventions.

Animal rights activists and indigenous communities are systematically excluded from debates on cross-species tech, despite bearing the brunt of its consequences. The lemurs’ lack of consent in these experiments reflects broader patterns of marginalized beings being subjected to human curiosity. Disabled and neurodivergent humans, often framed as 'beneficiaries' of such tech, are rarely consulted on its ethical implications. Marginalized voices in conservation, such as those from the Global South, emphasize ecological justice over human-centered tech solutions.