You are not making a fair comparison. The (somewhat simplified) options available are: 1. Raise and slaughter animals in the most convenient and/or economicall

You are not making a fair comparison. The (somewhat simplified) options available are: 1. Raise and slaughter animals in the most convenient and/or economically efficient way without regards for their suffering. (standard meat way) 2. Raise and slaughter animals in the most humane and painless way without regard for economic cost. (omnivore's dilemma way) 3. Do not raise any animals. Eat a 100% plan based diet. (vegan way). There is no scenario where animals can trade enduring pain for anything. We are talking about domestic animals. They are born because we facilitated it, with the expectation of a gain from such activity. I can see why people would want to be vegan, and while I do not share those opinions I respect them. But, if everybody thought like that, most domestic animal species would go extinct in a few decades. Most people would stop raising them, and if a few misguided folks would release flocks in the wild, those are in general not prepared to occupy an ecologic niche. They will either die off or wreck the environment of the region they were released at. So, between options 1 and 2. The animals are going to die anyways, because if we did not expected to eat them, nobody would have bothered raising them. The only question left is how much suffering are they to endure in the process of dying. Proponents of #1 say this does not matter as long as the plate is full. Proponents of #2 say it is morally right to eat less meat in order to ensure the animals get killed in a more humane way. How does your previous comment fits in that debate?