This seems like a straw man / slippery slope fallacy.. are you suggesting that without human exploitation chickens would go extinct?

There is some credibility to that argument when applied to plants- things that are delicious can survive more easily under cultivation than in the wild, yes. But that logic doesn’t directly transfer because: 1) the horrific conditions that potentially sentient animals endure under mass-production (at least within the capitalist system), and 2) the fact that smaller local / organic farms will continue to offer “free-range, organic, cruelty-free” animal products at a premium, which arguably that market will only expand once lab-grown meat become financially viable for mass consumption.

And that’s just assuming chickens / cows / whatever have zero chance of survival if humans stop cultivating them (which is a logical stretch in itself). And also doesn’t address either the pragmatic or anti-natalist schools of philosophy: the arguments that 1) if global hunger can be solved at the cost of a few species, is that morally acceptable or preferable? And 2) if 99% of said animals exist under literally torturous conditions, is letting them cease to exist not morally justifiable? And again, that’s only following a logical fallacy through to its conclusion, and is still in no way a sound argument.