[imgabe]

Possible and easy perhaps for a relatively small percentage of the world's population. It's doubtful that the industrialized society that enables a portion of the population to live without using animal products would ever have developed if we hadn't used animal products in the first place.

Everything that lives suffers and dies eventually. Why is it better for an animal to die and feed maggots than to die and feed a human?

[laurenbee]

> Why is it better for an animal to die and feed maggots than to die and feed a human?

These aren't the only two options. We could also stop breeding animals into miserable existences in order to fatten them up and slaughter them for our consumption (which, in addition to causing suffering, causes great harm to the environment as well).

> It's doubtful that the industrialized society that enables a portion of the population to live without using animal products would ever have developed if we hadn't used animal products in the first place.

I don't disagree that this was the case. In the past, people had fewer choices (and sadly, many people today do not have the luxury of choosing which foods they eat -- if they can get enough food at all). I am lucky to have a ton of options available to me, and so I choose to not support suffering.

[tbrownaw]

We could also stop breeding animals into miserable existences in order to fatten them up and slaughter them for our consumption (which, in addition to causing suffering, causes great harm to the environment as well).

We could also sterilize the planet and end suffering entirely.

[JoeAltmaier]

Something to do with the morals of cynically raising them solely to be food for us - there's definitely a responsibility there, different from hunting or eating animals that happened to die.