I mean, your two types of freedom discourse is largely correct, but this is missing the point I am making.

My original point is that civilization essentially is a form of self-domestication.

Then comes someone to attempt to disprove this by basically turning this into a discussion of comparative freedoms and standards of living.

Sure, ok but thats a non sequitur, its talking around my point, my claim, instead of actually challenging it.

Yep, we generally have more freedom from starvation, disease, etc.

The trade off is that we have more requirements of other kinds and less freedoms of other kinds.

This has nothing to do with the fact of domestication, it has to do with determining whether or not it is good or desireable.

At no point have I said anything like 'it was better before we invented cities and civilization and industrial technology.'

That would be a different claim, where what you point out would be relevant, but its not the claim I've made.

Also, captivity does not return nothing, strictly necessarily speaking within the original domain specific comparison of animal captivity, also the history of civilization very much includes the history of slavery, and yep, your definition of domestication agrees with what I am saying, have said.

You and underpantsweevil have both assumed I am making some kind of moral, ethical, 'should be' type claim.

Nope, I am not, I am just pointing out that civilized society is way different than 100k BCE society, and that if you time teleported a person from that era to our modern era, they'd likely describe the experience of integrating into our society as similar to being made into a pet, or perhaps highly ritualistic social role from their society, that they would feel like they were acting or performing in a world of millions of rules, and expected to do so all the time.