> As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you th

> As a global apex superpredator, wouldn't you rather reap the rewards of the rest of the ecosystem doing that work for you than doing it yourself? Or do you think there's a way we can produce those 5x plants efficiently enough to feed you without going 2nd hand? Or is the argument that with modern farming we're already producing those pkants anyway, and the meat step is unnecessary? Most animals consumed or used by humans in today's world are bred into existence by humans (through artificial insemination, forced and frequent pregnancies, etc.) and are fed 'well designed' feed (to maximize growth), which in turn uses vast resources like land and fresh water to grow plant food to feed the animals (essentially, this plant food is grown in one place and transported to another place to feed animals). Most (or all, depending on the location) of this feed is composed of plants that humans can consume (or the land can be used to grow plants that humans can consume). > Is it more economical to deal with logistics of 5 units of plants or 1 unit of meat? As mentioned above, the logistics to deal with five units of plants and processing them so animals can be fed these plants is already in use to produce animal based food and other items. So we don't really need to create new logistics to transport plant food in higher volume to humans. We just have to use what we have differently. I don't have a source or citation for this, but I've read somewhere that if humans use the arable land (currently in use to grow plants for humans and for the animals whom humans consume) for growing plant food to feed humans, we could potentially feed 11 billion people. Considering the significant negative environmental impact of animal agriculture, humans and other animals on this planet can last longer and benefit a lot by more people consuming more plants instead of consuming animals. To get an idea of the order of magnitude difference in fresh water used ('water foot print') for growing plants compared to growing animals for meat (including per calorie comparisons), look at this brief comparison on Waterfootprint.org. [1] (Not all plant foods are the same - so you may see some plants consuming more water than animal based foods) You could also skim through this study (linked on the previous page) and check the tables that have more information. [2] The interactive tools on that website are also interesting to learn from. [3] You could watch the documentary "Cowspiracy" [4] to get an idea about the overall impact of animal agriculture on the environment and how it's not sustainable or even possible to feed all humans on the planet with dairy and meat that does not come from factory farming operations. Intensive factory farming is a prerequisite if this is a goal. (As with all documentaries, it is a bit biased, but most figures and stats quoted in it are true or close to the truth). This is tangential, but humans are not 'apex super predators' and are not at the top of the food chain ('trophic level'). On average, globally, and on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being plants and 5 being an apex super predator), humans come at 2.21 (less than half way). [5] [1]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-f... [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2012-WaterFootprintFarmAnimalProducts.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-... [3]: http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/ [4]: http://cowspiracy.com/ http://cowspiracy.com/ [5]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans-really-rank-on-the-food-chain-180948053/?no-ist http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/where-do-humans...