The article you posted claims that, since animal non-existence is "preferable" to animal suffering, the ethical choice is to euthanize / sterilize as many animals as possible. But you claim after you post the article that the actual better outcome is that animals are brought into existence by humans should be given better lives before they are killed by humans.
>since animal non-existence is "preferable" to animal suffering, the ethical choice is to euthanize / sterilize as many animals as possible.
The article isn't seriously suggesting to euthanize /sterilize as many animals as possible; I would suggest you reread it. It's using that as an example to point out the moral conundrum that vegetarians undertake when they become vegetarian rather than just "anti-factory farm".
Regardless, I don't claim to align with the article in its entirety - just the idea that animals which have much better lives than their wild counterparts are morally suitable for eating. But yes in continuation of this we should strive for the best lives possible for said animals.
