[sooyoo]

I agree with your overall sentiment. I'd never buy or consume foie gras and don't care that it's a "cultural thing".

But your general description of meat production is a bit too simplistic. The main issue with it, for me, is not the very act of taking a life for food. It's about what comes before it. The life the animals have in captivity. There are differences of course, but generally lifestock is held in too little space, too high stocking density, inappropriate bedding, flooring and treatment in case of diseases. It's a matter of cost. One can provide conditions where lifestock is suffering much less, having a good life even, but that means much more cost per pound meat sold. In addition, beginning of life (insemination which can be "natural" or artificial or some kind of in-between rape kind) and end (different ways of taking the life, some gas suffocating the animal causing terrible pain, or bolt-into-brain or) can also provide or prevent different levels of suffering. Again it's a matter of cost.

I personally do eat meat. Not everyday but most days. I do try to ensure that the farmer provided the animals with a good life, as I know most of them personally. Or it's a wild animal, running through the forest until the last moments. Not practical for everybody, and pretty pricey, but avoids the worst.

As you see, suffering is key here. The mere act of taking a life is "natural". (A bolt through the brain is quick and less painful than the long hunt by a pack of wolves or a lion.) It's still a kill, but that's the balance I'm striking personally.

[cies]

Everyone strikes a balance personally. Myself, being vegan, I still drive a car which kills some bugs. So I have no pretence I'm "fully right".

That said, let's consider dairy. Cows have their babies taken from them right after birth, which entails days of audible suffering from the mums (they cry for days). This happens 4-5 times in their live. The baby is fed formula, the moms milk is taken and sold for profit. That's the suffering you mentioned. That's impossible to avoid when producing dairy at scale.

That's why I'm vegan.

[sooyoo]

Yes, it's correct that a majority of larger scale dairy farming today practices this. The usual argument is that it reduces separation stress (since the calf is assumed to be too young to remember and the cow didn't yet get used to having it by its side), but that argument does not have actual scientific evidence.

But it's far from impossible to avoid. There are farms that keep calves with their moms for the first months and this is an active topic of academic research in animal welfare groups around the world, mostly in Europe. There are some drawbacks, like obviously the calf drinks some of the milk that otherwise could be sold, but there are advantages too, like calves growing faster and having better health which could compensate for these effects, but again, this is still being researched.

So, it's not even clear that it's economically better to separate cow and calf right after birth (dairy industry is quite conservative and slow to adopt change.) But even if there is an economic hit, it's not so big and consumers who care could just pay more. It could eventually be included in regulations for dairy farming, and until then, people who care (like you and me) can voluntarily buy milk from farms that practice keeping them together. Apart from being better for the animals, it also shows farmers and regulators that people care and this can work.

I respect you going vegan, but for this particular problem there are solutions and it seems like there are worse things that we do to animals.