Your way of thinking will never win over enough people to make the meat industry shrink enough to not benefit from economies of scale.
Here's hoping that isn't the case.
In what respect? The non human aspect.... You see, animals don't have any morals whatsoever. Since you see humans as animals you should be happy I have any moral period.
And neither do many humans e.g infants, the severly cognitively impaired, comatose persons, etc. These individuals don't have morals. But they're human too. So there isn't a clear dividing line between all humans and non human animals. So whatever grounds you think there are for clearly differentiating the two (and whether this is a ethically relevant criterion), you're going to run into problems.
I doubt animals or nature in general missed any of the 50 million or so people that died in and around WW2
What does this have to do with anything?
It could be argument that a massive depopulation of people would be a good thing.
Via the holocaust? Wow....
Re-read what I posted it because you're not understanding my point.
Ethical arguments are relevant only in the perspective of those that frame them and are entirely different than natural laws. To compare and ethical argument to an natural law is a false analogy.
Your right. It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to what is ethical regarding the treatment of animals. It depends on the person and the society. Given that some societies would have no problem eating you and me while others would feel it's wrong to kill the rats eating the grain and all would have plenty of reasons for their position.
Ok, why does it depend on the person or the society? Back it up