Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on what you mean by "thrive." Many of them will "thrive" in conditions that it would be illegal to put a human into. I'm not sure if I call that "thriving."
Many humans "thrive" in conditions that are illegal to put humans in to. I don't really see your point, since it doesn't even remotely talk about the relative rates of the two populations or compare what would happen with humans to what would happen without for any of the species. It seems to be contentless objection to what I said, despite the fact that humans are known to greatly increase the prevalence of all of t…
Based on this definition the American colonies helped Africans 'thrive' on the American continent by bringing them over as slaves, and allowing them to reproduce.
I could agree with you in the case of wild animals that mooch off of humans (racoons, crows, rats, etc), but in the case of livestock, or animals raised for the sole purpose of being tested on in laboratory settings (and possibly killed immediately after), I don't think you can really spin that as a positive thing from the perspective of those species.
It would be like an alien species taking humans away to 'domesticate' them and raise them as livestock on another planet. And then hand-waving away concerns about all life on Earth going extinct because the "livestock humans" are 'thriving' because they are bred in large numbers in captivity (and even trying to make it sound like putting them in captivity for such a purpose was actually better for them then letting them live their own lives).