This is called moving the goalposts. You could just as easily advocate for more humane slaughter house conditions but you are instead using bad actors (claiming this is how ALL animals are slaughtered) to call for a vegan lifestyle.
Vegan = reduce suffering and cruelty to other sentient beings as practically as possible. So this means the only justification for killing an animal to consume its flesh is when our survival depends on it. That is not the case anymore for the majority of people.
My premise is around the large scale factory farm industry, which not only causes immense suffering and cruelty, but also causes great pollution and environmental destruction.
Feeding the whole world with meat is not sustainable.
That's not moving the goalpost, but a fact (See UN, IPPC and various other reports).
Like how India does it. There used to be a documentary on netflix on this. The greatest density of animals and humans, where both help each other survive.
I was asking you whether you meant that breeding more animals for slaughter would solve our high carbon footprint in the animal agriculture industry?
If yes - then it doesn't make sense, since the science community agrees we need to reduce meat and dairy consumption not increase it.
And a lot of people in India are vegetarian.
> lot of people in india are vegetarian.
Not really. Majority are not vegetarian. only Gujurat is Majority vegetarian. Every where else they are a minority. They have made it a purpose of life to feed wild animals, and live with wild animals. It's quite fascinating.
Raising more animals will mean more resources are required, such as land, water etc. It's more efficient to use that land and use that water to grow food for us.
So are you saying the scientific community is wrong by saying that the world needs to reduce meat & dairy consumption?