You're really arguing something separate here. We can't eat a lot of plants that animals can. 36% of corn goes to feed animals for meat, but what percentage of corn is inedible for humans? (husks, leaves, cobs)
There's a reason we don't domesticate carnivores - we're not creating any more food sources. We don't compete with things that digest cellulose.
Just because one is very tasty doesn't mean it makes the other any less desirable.
On the same topic, it's ironic how we lump "meat" into a single category. How the animals are raised and fed has a huge effect on the flavor and taste of the meat.
If McDonalds hamburgers disappeared I wouldn't even notice. If I am not able to buy grass fed ribeye from a local farm I'd be very disappointed.
Sketch out a model of the evolution of dietary preferences in the ancestral environment (esp post-fire) and you will quickly see this is an insane thing to believe.
I was pretty specific about saying animals in my post. Why animals? Because we are known to mourn the death of other animals.
We don't mourn the death of food animals typically so its OK then?
Your criteria are arbitrary, and that's fine for a personal value but you certainly can't expect others to agree with you.
It would be more like if there were plows at the time that operated on solar but nobody wanted to use them, and instead, decided to tie horses to the plows because they would rather.
Had a hard time working farm subsidies into the analogy.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...