Don’t single out farmers here. Lets make this more general because its a societal problem, not a “farmer” problem. If the human species did what was best for all animals, including themselves, there wouldnt be need for any laws or governing. But we all know that theft and murder happen among humans, and we dont associate ourselves as good citizens with those kinds of practices. Therefore a farmer who practices good ethics and welfare shouldnt be associated with those who dont.

dOSUp,
I have been blessed with 3 children and my entire family probably produces less waste than most 2 person families in the U.S. We do not contribute to the meat production waste at all since we are vegan. We compost and we use our purchasing power to buy things with as little impact as possible on the planet. Waste may be rising directly with the population, but that doesn’t mean it has to be that way….there are choices being made here. You can argue both sides of almost every story. Your assumption that I am MISinformed and emotional, is just that….an ASSumption.

Yes, animals can feel pain and discomfort and we also share DNA sequences with the phylum porifera which are sea sponges. I am neither suggesting nor advocating that animals be mistreated or raised inhumanely to the point where they should be constantly in pain or discomfort. I’m suggesting that what we consider “humane” based on human standards and what we consider humane for animal standards cannot be equated. If thats the case, we might as well give animals the ability to drive cars, pass medical board tests and have public education. Humans and sub-human animals are not equal evolutionarily, physiologically, or anatomically and on those bases you must re-evaluate what it is that constitutes an anial with ‘good welfare’. Some people think pigs are happiest when out in a pig-sty where they can roll in mud, when in all actuality pigs are rather clean animals and only rolled in the mud to keep the biting insects and sun off of them. We cannot classify “animal welfare” as one single entity because each species of animal has its own needs and niche in which it is most comfortable. Its not enough to say “We shouldnt mistreat animals and they should be able to have happy lives”. That is ridiculously obvious, but it provides nothing of a basis, nor a solution. Now you can get into the Kantian vs Utilitarian morality of everything but that argument hasnt been solved for the past few centuries, probably wont be solved anytime soon. The solution to welfare problems is no less complicated than any issue currently in the world, healthcare, warfare, religion. Thinking compassionately is surely something that needs to be encouraged and I think a lack of compassion is definitely what leads to the worst conditions seen in livestock production. Animal compassion and advocacy is also the reason that I, my 139 classmates and the thousands of other students, professors, and clinicians are in the field that we have chosen. Compassion is what got us into the field, but the ability to use scientific knowledge to support our cause is power that speaks to polticians, CEO’s, and other professionals.
Yes, we can survive without meat but lets take a look at how mother nature, evolution, has dealt with this. The animals that are strictly plant eaters all have novel adaptations to digest plant starches and fiber. Ruminants use a rumen and microbes, hindgut fermenters use a cecum, and they all have teeth or other dental traits consistent with crushing and grinding grasses and grains. Humans have canine teeth, and dentition very indicative and similar to any other omnivorous species, we have a simple glandular stomach and relatively short series of intestines and a distinct inability to break down plant fibers. The closest thing to being “plant eaters” is our appendix which unless you want to challenge modern medicine, is a vestigial pouch that serves as a great source of infection. Our closest DNA link, the chimpanzee, is also an omnivore, and they are not eating based on convenience or mindfulness of resource. They are eating for survival and fitness, and they do eat meat. Consequently they also eat eachother, which makes you see that the whole 2% difference in DNA is actually a pretty substantial difference. So yes, as humans we might choose to eat meat, but just asmuch, a vegan chooses to only eat non animal products. Both of us could survive only eating our chosen product, but neither of us would truly be healthy and fit because our bodies are designed to eat both, together. FYI, taking vitamin and supplements does not count as part of a vegetarian/vegan diet. You can defend your position from a purely emotional standpoint and believe me, I am am not rationalizing or hiding guilt or hardening my soul, because I see and feel the same emotions. But when you speak and act on emotion alone, THAT is when you are failing to use the higher power that is unique to humans. Animals can be humane to lesser species, watch a gorilla play with an insect; and they can also act out of pure emotion and instinct, like a chimp killing another member of their species and then consuming it. However, they lack the ability to decide that the very insect they are playing with harbors an infectious pathogen that could wipe out their entire species or that when they kill the other member of their species they are actually removing a member of a very small and dwindling population. That is why WE must think and act with not only our most primal emotions such as hate, love, and compassion, but with the parts and pathways with which only the human brain posesses.