>Once we finally have artificial meat and thus stop killing sentient beings...

But that's literally in your scenario. If you don't have an answer, that's fine, because all of this is idealism. I just never see any conversation pertaining to what we do with all the animals.

It seems like it comes down to a substantial culling, as letting them loose would be disastrous for a few obvious reasons.

The question doesn't make any sense, because it presupposes that everybody changes behavior in a timeframe that is very short compared to the typical lifespan of the animals. But I don't think that's conceivable. The total number of chickens in the world may be tens of billions but is a fraction of the number consumed in a year, I believe. Feel free to correct me if you have some knowledge about farming.

probably something with my English - i described target state, not the procedure to reach it.

First: Your English is perfectly fine. As someone that speaks English as a first language; I greatly respect and appreciate you even trying. That's an admirable trait, friend; don't ever feel bad, or especially let someone else make you feel bad for trying to communicate. It's the most human thing there is.

Second: That's kind of my perspective. Ideas are cheap and easy. Idealism paints the perfect outcome, without the really hard parts of making it happen, or the incredibly complicated network of systems that would be effected by trying to reach the target. These are huge problems; entrenchment is incentivized and reinforced on many levels. We often don't solve problems, we treat symptoms, because it's easier than doing what needs to be done to solve the problems.