He says that the only reason an intelligent human wants the life of a fool or an animal is if they are cases of misfortune extreme. Mill admits that a being of lower abilities is more likely to achieve them and that a being of higher abilities is more likely to be disappointed, but he asserts that the second being will learn to accept his imperfections and will not envy not the first being. . Later, Mill says that the only reason humans prefer or become addicted to lower pleasures is because they do not have proper access to higher pleasures. I disagree with these points, and I think they become less credible if we look at the "personal preference" factor again. I don't think it's totally unreasonable for a person who is generally satisfied with their life to still prefer the life of their own pet dog who they treat very well. What if this thought experiment about “trading life” went the other way? Suppose there is a highly intelligent creature with high abilities, even greater than those of humans, and a lifespan of 200 years. They could devote all this time and intelligence to practicing philosophy or pursuing other great intellectual pleasures, but the problem is that they have no access to animal pleasures; they do not eat, do not have sex and have very limited motor skills. Therefore, this creature has much greater access to higher pleasures, but not to lower pleasures. According to Mill, that would be the best life, wouldn't it? It is certain that Mill would exchange his lower pleasures for higher pleasures, especially when the higher pleasures were more numerous and longer. However, I don't think many humans would trade their lives for it, as I think a happy life requires balance in many areas, including the lower pleasures. And so, I don't think Mill is completely justified in saying that it is always "better »