It's not just for taste pleasure. It's a great source of protein, for example, much better than any vegetable. It's a very convenient and dense source of nutrients overall. I don't see any impediments to animal slaughter as long as it's for consumption; I consider it justified.

If I intend to consume an animal's meat, then putting it down is necessary. There are methods of extracting certain organs from animals while they still live (like duck livers (foie gras), for example); I am against these practices since they generate needless suffering.

I'm not an expert in the field, buy we should use whichever method is optimal for putting down the animal while trying to avoid needless suffering.

We don't eat animals because they "deserve it". We eat animals because we can farm them and meat is an amazing source of nutrients.

I've heard that hemp fiber-based clothing is more sustainable too, but the cotton industry doesn't like that.

Don't be infantile. Both statements are correct, but the way you're presenting the data can be misleading and is generally less useful. When considering burned areas, what matters is what can burn.

This is once again placing the blame on the wrong people. The average person is powerless and already doing their best to sustain themselves in the harsh conditions our society imposes. Someone working minimum wage can't afford to eat a healthy vegetarian diet, they can't afford to buy products fabricated in places with fair working conditions, etc.

Companies don't care about the damage they're causing, and governments aren't doing enough to regulate them. The consumers can't put a stop to this when they're too busy trying to survive.

Sometimesfrost doesn't have the same ring to it