Your question about maintaining domestic species is a good (and difficult) one. I don't really have space to answer it here, but, in a sentence: I can't make sense of the idea that we have obligations to species (or breeds, or what-have-you), though we certainly can have obligations to individual animals to provide them with a decent home. Actually, I think that the chance to find a 'home' for animals is one of the advantages of the non-vegan food system I propose in the article above over a simple plant-based food system. (I go into this in some detail in my forthcoming book.)

I absolutely agree with you that humans may have different obligations to domesticated animals than wild animals, just as we may have (for example) different obligations to our family than to strangers. Indeed, that's the central thesis of my first book, but I didn't talk about it in this article, as I was more interested in exploring questions about future food systems.

I also agree with you (and I think I said this in the article above) that humans and chickens may have very different interests, and thus very different rights. The point of the child/chicken comparison in my previous reply was to challenge the suggestion (if this was your suggestion) that because we have created (say) a chicken we can choose to ignore her interests.

And I agree with you that, as far as we know, it's only humans who make conscious decisions about morality. But, again, I don't think that means that we can just choose to ignore the interests of others if it is convenient. Quite the opposite, I'd have thought.