Maybe I am too materialistic about this but from my point of view, in the end, the big fish is going to eat the small fish. You can make the entire human population herbivores, but you still won't make the other animal species anything different than they are. If we don't eat them, someone else will.
I think you have completely misunderstood me, and I don't really think your point makes that much sense.
Firstly, my argument has nothing to do with making 'the entire human population' herbivores. Secondly, 'if we don't eat them, someone else will' - the whole point is that if we don't eat them/eat less/switch to more humane ways of farming and killing then we will create less animals and ecologically inefficient means of production. Thirdly, if you're attempting to take your argument from nature, as in, 'big fish eats the small fish', you would also have to accept cannibalism as an acceptable meat to eat.
Remember the argument is based on 'unnecessary' eating of meat. I accept that for many poor local eco-systems the best way of getting nutrition is by small-scale farming of animals.
Besides
Wikipedia said:
A number of critics contest the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems. Among these critics are
Norman Borlaug, father of the "
green revolution", Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process,
[77] and
Prof A. Trewavas.
[78]
Asserting that organic farming practices can't manage to feed more than 4 billion people and cause ecological damage doesn't detract from the fact that current farming practices can't manage to feed them either, and still cause massive and growing ecological damage. Though thank you for pointing me to those links, they make interesting reading.
I'm resisting the urge to pun.
What I'm trying to say is that the current system of massive and unnecessary meat consumption (in fact, generally western food consumption) causes great damage; not least the human impact in famine, but also the ecological impact from the inherently inefficient method of farming food for feeding the meat we eat, and also the moral impact - so many consume so much without considering or appreciating where it comes from.
Being vegetarian avoids moral inconsistencies ('I care about animal welfare but I love McDonalds'), reduces individual ecological impact in regards to participating in food systems that are one of the greatest contributors to climate change, plus in regards to efficiency (kgs of water used per kg of food consumed is one good measure), and in participation in an economic chain that causes famine and destruction of local habitats and economies.
Plus it's easier to avoid unhealthy foods, both in just that the majority of meat is bad for you in the way it's eaten and served in the west, and in that it makes you more diet conscious anyway.
I would like to say that the argument also leads nicely to political, social and economic ones but this really isn't the place (nor the thread).
Besides, I really don't feel like defending my position here any more, it's complicated enough to try and persuade people in person, adding the barrier of the internet makes expressing myself hard work...