Your position on this fundamentally comes down to your own reactionary position on non-human animals, in seeing thinking, feeling, independent beings as the same as or little better than objects.

Because your position is purist. There’s plenty of situations where in the global south immediate survival or traditional cuisine outweighs the sensibilities and moral values of western values on animals. That’s really the crux of it. That’s your values and part of it comes from a colonizing sense that these people must adopt and rigidly structure their culture and way of life to your strict ideologues. I don’t expect the indigenous in Alaska to start changing their habits or cultural values.

We in the west can certainly change ours, I moved towards vegetarianism myself.

It’s the same reason I don’t expect indigenous people to immediately embrace Marxism-Leninism. All though, it could be argued that it is considered in some theory. People will have to come to and slowly adopt these positions through experimentation, learning from the past and the material conditions that they exist in.

I’d argue that animal consumption could be entirely out the window even in some third-world countries when it becomes efficient, incredibly cheap and less energy-intensive to just print meat. Could be a hundred years off, could be a couple hundred.

Even after the “revolution”, animal sanctuaries/entertainment might be around until we can fully simulate them. Dogs and cats will be around, I can promise you those aren’t going away anytime soon; but maybe once we unlock full genetic modification of an entire species at once.

edit: Immediately downvoting my comment doesn’t exactly lend any counterpoint to “purism”.