Meat is a massive food source for our species that is easily producible. We don't have enough resources to feed our entire planet as it is.
That is 100% wrong. We (as a species) make WAY more food than we need. I don't know why this myth gets perpetuated.
Yes, but the cost is the thing here. One public policy argument with some traction here I think for cutting down on meat consumption is that it will reduce the price of grains by some amount (you don't need to plant as much marginal land with higher production costs), which is the single best thing one can do to increase the well being of the poorest of the poor on this planet, and the single most compelling reason why ethanol subsidies which suck up grains in exactly the same way as cows and pigs do, is sheer unadulterated evil. The cost of basic food staples is where the rubber meets the road, when you make 3 dollars a day.
I remember reading about the British corn laws, and some 19th century economist or whomever, noticing that the wheat fields in Britain (corn equals wheat for the Brits because they really don't speak "English"
) ) were spreading up onto the uplands due to inflated prices (due to import quotas and/or tariffs in that instance). He knew something was rotten in Denmark because he could see it with his own two beady little eyes. So when it becomes profitable for me to cut down the trees on the slopes of my farm, and plant a crop, you know things have
really gone out of control. So, next time you are in Iowa, take a look at just how much corn is growing on steeper slopes. If you see it growing on the "Iowa Alps" of Madison County, call your Congressman.
See I can argue both sides of an issue at the drop of a hat.
I do think there is a genetic consanguinity component to this vegan thing. Few would object if you consume protozoa. Another component is the pet thing. Few would not object when it comes to eating cats and dogs, or presumably those foxes which have been bred into pets, with cute floppy ears, and a loveable disposition.