So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat.
So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself.
The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.
It would be more of a thing about sappiency and about their own culture, even considering they could be wildly diferent to us in biology, they could be cephalopods,birds, bears or even plants or funghi,yes, we can survive without them.
My principal point is that que are already asuming too many things about those other sapient beings: -theyre animals that cannot reproduce sexualy vía grafts -they have the same fear death than western people -they may not have canibalistic customs about themselves
And we dont even know if there IS a being that is like that and straight to the point we wouldnt have the alternative to actually subsitute vía emulation.
Being not compulsory to live doens’t mean its not a thing that we can rennounce as fast as a moral vision would like, there is more of nuance and yes, we can survive without animal products but there are big chalenges about It, and more about actually living without them in a normal way,as today we cant really reproduce what meat actually does.