nsrxn

it does not address the moral argument that is at the root of this discussion.

the moral argument in this thread is about allocation of resources. if you want to make a separate moral argument, you're free to do so.

Even if this were true

it is

Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.

human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.

The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.

this is a lie

most people don't want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.

the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.

sure, but I can't eat cornstalks and I don't want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.

It’s established that plant-based diets are entirely appropriate for all stages of life, even pregnancy and childhood.

this is no longer the position of the academy.

no, you said those calories are wasted.

any policy you can implement to address "overpopulation" is eugenics. so there is nothing (ethical) to do about it.

this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.

most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can't or won't eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.