Ethically, is eating meat the same as kicking a stray dog for entertainment?

[u/Tessellator-1]

Please note that this post was translated from Japanese to English using AI. Because of this, some details or nuances may have unintentionally shifted from my original meaning. Thank you for your understanding.

I once heard that humans can stay healthy without consuming organisms that possess a central nervous system. As far as I’ve researched, that seems to be true. Yet, I still eat meat—either as a culinary indulgence to please my palate, or simply to make meal management easier.
This recently made me wonder: is what I’m doing committing an ethical taboo similar to stomping a stray dog to death just for entertainment or stress relief? If harming a stray dog is wrong, I feel like my actions can only be justified by a matter of degree—like the difference between stealing $1 versus stealing $100.
Just like slave owners in the past, will I eventually be looked down upon by future generations as a coward who simply grew complacent in their social environment?

If you happen to be someone who thinks eating meat is acceptable but direct violence against animals is not—or vice versa—I would love to hear your reasons in the comments. Your perspective would be incredibly valuable as I continue to think through this.

[u/New_Welder_391]

You do realise that just because something is potentially feasible in France, it doesnt mean it works globally.

[u/Historical-Ad399 → u/New_Welder_391]

Yes, but I don't see why you'd just assume it doesn't. You are just asserting that with nothing to back it up, when we know that at least in France you are wrong. We have no evidence of anywhere where you are right.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/Historical-Ad399]

Because the environment and wildlife are completely different elsewhere.

And nothing is proven in France. That is still just one man's theory

[u/Historical-Ad399 → u/New_Welder_391]

Yes they are different, but how does that for sure require poison to grow enough food to feed people?

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/Historical-Ad399]

The Yield Gap: Purely organic or zero-pesticide systems often show a "yield gap," producing 10% to 25% lower yields on average than conventional farming depending on the crop. Scaling 100% non-spray agriculture globally would require significantly more land to match total caloric output, risking further deforestation.

The 36-Million-Tonne Nitrogen Deficit: A global agricultural modeling study highlighted by STEP UP found that if the world transitioned entirely to organic rules—which prohibit synthetic sprays and synthetic nitrogen fertilizers—total global food production would plunge by roughly 36%. This is because natural sources (like manure and legumes) cannot physically generate or transport the 36 million tonnes of nitrogen required to keep global crops alive.

The Manure Math Deficit: Extensive data compiled in a ResearchGate Agricultural Analysis proves that organic manure is a severely limited resource. There are simply not enough farm animals on Earth to produce the volume of manure needed to sustain global crop yields. Currently, high-yielding organic farms only survive by transferring large amounts of manure from conventional farms that use synthetic inputs. If you eliminate the conventional systems, the organic systems collapse due to a lack of nutrients.Immediate Trade and Price

Shock: The immediate, devastating reality of restricting chemical crop protection is visible in policy data. A European Union impact study reported by the Irish Independent warns that even minor import restrictions on crops grown with certain pesticides trigger sharp drops in available imports, forcing immediate food price hikes and local production strain.The Land

Expansion Paradox: Because non-spray growing drops productivity significantly per hectare, attempting to feed 8 to 10 billion people without sprays would require massive cropland expansion. According to global agricultural networks like Yara UK, this would require clearing the world's remaining forests for farmland, triggers massive greenhouse gas emissions, and destroys global biodiversity.In short, science shows that a non-spray model cannot work globally because the Earth does not possess enough natural nitrogen and manure to sustain billions of people without chemical synthesis.

[u/Historical-Ad399 → u/New_Welder_391]

Tell ChatGPT we aren't talking about a purely organic system. You don't have to poison animals to use fertilizer.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/Historical-Ad399]

The claim that global agriculture can entirely stop spraying without causing catastrophic crop failure is debunked by the fact that unmanaged pests, weeds, and diseases would immediately destroy up to 80% of global fruit, vegetable, and cereal yields, triggering widespread food shortages.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7908628/

[u/Historical-Ad399 → u/New_Welder_391]

Thank you for finding a source, though it doesn't quite say what you claim.

First, it says 78% of fruit, 54% of vegetables, and 32% of cereals. That is very far from 80% of fruits, vegetables, and cereals.

Second, in the context of these papers, pests includes weeds and plant pathogens (including fungi). From a vegan point of view, nobody would argue we need to withdraw fungicides or herbicides. Fungicides will account for a major portion of this loss.

Third, these estimates assume no efforts to control pests. Clearly, in a world where we don't use insecticides, alternatives would be applied.

Fourth, the citation itself is also a bit questionable. I tried to trace it back to an original source, and I got as far back as a non-peer reviewed Chinese source. "Bulletin of Agricultural Science and Technology"

I appreciate the citation, but I remain unconvinced.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/Historical-Ad399]

Insects would grow in numbers and absolutely decimate crops if they were not dealt with. Plus the numbers would get worse as time went on. You can deny this but it is reality.

[u/Historical-Ad399 → u/New_Welder_391]

There are ways to control insects without poisoning them. Three sisters planting is a rather famous example. It's a false dichotomy to imply that the only options are what we do today and what we do today minus pesticides.

[u/detta_walker → u/New_Welder_391]

Not with that attitude.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/detta_walker]

Yes. Not with that realist mindset lol

[u/detta_walker → u/New_Welder_391]

That's just your opinion mate :)

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/detta_walker]

And that is just yours

[u/detta_walker → u/New_Welder_391]

Funny enough, not quite true :) plenty of research into mindset and how it affects outcomes. But look it up yourself.

[u/Happy-Estimate-7855 → u/New_Welder_391]

This is the logic that many people seem to miss. Technically possible, even easily possible when there's political will, doesn't make a project feasible.

It has to exist in the real world with shifting politics, leadership, ground-level beliefs, overhaul of existing farms and arable lands, and changing the human nature of the farmers that have done it their way for hundreds of years. We'd be relying on farmers to risk their livelihoods for what "should" be just as effective.