> Also, I don't understand why you agree that animals should be killed humanely where possible if you don't care about their emotional state. I'll break that d

> Also, I don't understand why you agree that animals should be killed humanely where possible if you don't care about their emotional state. I'll break that down for you. I recognize animals can feel pain, and that they don't like it. I have pets, I don't want them to feel pain; but I also won't shell out thousands for vet care like some folks do if the worst should happen. In other words, I'm realistic about it while not being overly emotional. I think there's a curve function where we can choose the optimal level of reducing suffering while also maximizing the availability of protein for consumption; I think there's room on that curve for humane killing of livestock. No problem. > nothing but the birds of our mass-production dependent way of life coming home to roost. You sound like Ted Kaczynski. Mass-production is why you and I are here talking to each other; we owe our very lives to it. > one that meat is murder, the other that all we should care about is how much meat costs. At least with the latter philosophy we don't starve.