So until we can give a precise, reductionist definition of what suffering is - and enumerate all that can/can't experience it - then animal treatment is not an

So until we can give a precise, reductionist definition of what suffering is - and enumerate all that can/can't experience it - then animal treatment is not an ethical question? Given a hammer and a choice to hit either a kitten or a rock for $10, what distinctions between the two would you make to help your decision? I think a central nervous system and/or an analogue for a response that we recognize as pain are a decent starting point. What proportion of meat-based meals are eaten instead of plant-based meals specifically because of that lack of human ready plant food being available? Do the bacteria which are targeted by plant antibiotics pose a similar risk to humans as the bacteria that affect livestock such as pigs? It might be ethical to euthanize a majority of cows etc., if it could be done instantaneously, painlessly, and somehow without creating humanitarian or environmental issues. It would have to be a perfect hot swap, though. When technology and space exploration allows, I would also support simply relocating these Earth species en masse to other customized planets where they can live/suffer/die in more natural or "fair" terms without our systematic interference.