This is an interesting comment! There are a few implications tucked together here that made me think. Forgive me if I'm missing your intent(s) but the way I'm

This is an interesting comment! There are a few implications tucked together here that made me think. Forgive me if I'm missing your intent(s) but the way I'm reading your comment it seems to be implying "the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is a worse situation so the logic is wrong or should be ignored". Which implies that not being extinct is the most important thing even if life is completely suffering. (It also implies a false dichotomy where the only two options are the horrible suffering of modern factory farming or extinction, with no options in between.) I have an earnest question about your opinion, without casting any judgement or gotchas about any real world complicated situations: In a hypothetical world where horrible factory farming is the only possible life for these chickens (the ONLY alternative is extinction) do you think it is worse to keep the system going than letting them go extinct? I think that's the intent in your comment and, if so, would you mind sharing a bit more about why you think that?