The current financial system and various corporations see the majority of consumers like livestock - a kind of resource to be exploited. It's better to be free range organic though, in my humble opinion, but the majority seem to be trending towards battery/cage chickens.

With "free range organic" are you describing people or food? As in, "it's better to be a free range organic human [vs. battery/caged livestock human-like resource for exploitation]", or "it's better to _eat_ free range organic [food]"? These are two different things, and in either case I'd argue not an option for the people who struggle affording food that is health(ier) by modern standards.

> the majority seem to be trending towards battery/cage chickens.

it's not a trend - 99.96% of chicken sold in the US is factory farmed[1]

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/almost-all-livestoc...

What does free range organic mean in this context?

To be free range you need significant wealth for the free range.

To be organic you need significant wealth for farmers market type food.

So in both cases you must be wealthy to avoid the cage or am I missing something?

> It's better to be free range organic though, in my humble opinion, but the majority seem to be trending towards battery/cage chickens.

This is assuming the majority of chickens have a choice.

you could argue most livestock have it better

they are fed, housed and cleaned by their owners

still hoping for the WEF to confirm my livestock status and begin the UBI payments