Interesting. If you are up to critically reflect your own perspective, let‘s start a discussion on your rejection of anti-speciesism. First of all, let us clar

Interesting. If you are up to critically reflect your own perspective, let‘s start a discussion on your rejection of anti-speciesism. First of all, let us clarify what anti-speciesism means so that we are on the same page here and don‘t fight with windmills that don‘t exist. Anti-speciesisim is the position that one should not discriminate on the basis of species as it is not a morally relevant criterion for making destinctions between living beings. The argument is that similar to the color of skin, there is nothing that we inherently value in being a member of a specific species. What we generally care about are other more fundamental criteria such as ability to feel pleasure and pain or some other criteria that could be a plausible source of value (e.g., potential to create value in the world which could be proxied by intelligence). Thus, it is totally possible to be anti-speciesist and still value human beings more than other animals based on the understanding that we are different in our ability to feel pleasure and pain or create value in the world. Moreover, in your post you have not made any argument which would put anti-speciesim per se into question. Of course, you could argue that there is an inherent difference between non-human and human animals but you still need to define what that criterion is. If you believe in an evolutionary world view species doesn‘t seem like a good candidate since we basically randomly evolved from other animals and it would be totally unclear from which point on we were worthy of moral consideration. It seems much more likely that you care about something else then species but I am open to hear your side on the argument. Now, where you probably see a difference to most anti-speciesists is the degree to which you want to give recognition to the moral value of non-human animals. For anti-speciesists, how much moral concern we should have for an animal is generally an empirical question that is based on some definition of cognitive function. Going down this route has the nice property of making things emendable to a grounded discussion about facts rather than just moral intuitions. To sum up, I think you should really reconsider your position on anti-speciesism as it is a pretty defensible and logical position to take if you are inclined toward a scientific world view that recognizes evolutionary theory. Regarding the moral question of using animals for food production if we don‘t have to (and trust me, we don‘t need to rely on almost all of the billions of animals we are slaughtering every year for reasons of tradition or taste), I can also recommend the following short video (2 min) on a thought experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUz6Rj5oo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSUz6Rj5oo4