There’s also a pretty… sane… subgroup that proposes ‘corrective breeding’; a process wherein we undo the destructive changes humans introduced to the species and return them to what would be found in their ‘natural’ state

Yeah I feel like that is just forcing animals to live in the way humans want them to live under a weird assumption that we know what they want.

I could live out in the wild if I really wanted to, but I don't because living in a heated home, having access to healthcare, and having a grocery store nearby is way better than starving to death, getting frostbite, dying of a disease, or getting eaten by wolves. I don't know how an animal wants to live their lives, so who knows, maybe they'd rather die of disease over being poked by a few needles by a veterinarian, starving because there's no mangers filled by humans, or getting eaten alive by a pack of wolves. Maybe animals want that, but there's no way of knowing and it's a really weird thing to assume given humans don't want to live that way. We live happy an fulfilling lives without having to constantly worry about being eaten by wolves, why would that be a requirement for an animal to be happy?

I think people see nature from a Disney cartoon perspective where the only danger is a human hunter. But the reality is nature is extremely brutal.

I don't think a perfect ethical solution to domesticated animals really exists. Best we can do is just treat animals better. If they seem like they're happy enough, then that's probably alright.