You would truly need to be starving from famine or an "Instagram Go-Green Promoter" to eat this.
That's what the debate is about.
But yeah, production issues can increase price, which will create a whole lot of issues downstream - for example even if people won't literally starve, some of them won't be able to both eat and make rent. Which will predictably piss them off, and this is how you get Arab Spring as a consequence of corn ethanol.
I think you're missing out some key facts about poor people.
Search for "100% grass fed beef". There are many ranches that sell it around the country, even in California. Some deliver, some sell in farmer's markets, and a few products are even available in markets like Sprouts.[1]
The fact that it's not available in most supermarkets could be fixed.
1: https://www.sprouts.com/healthy-living/sprouts-butcher-shop-...
Perhaps the solution is a mix of both: eat less meat and only eat sustainably raise meat.
Because that's the point I'm making. Grass fed beef cannot scale up beyond current production to solve hunger.
(Also I adopted my cat about a decade before I became a vegetarian, it doesn't seem morally superior to destroy her because I had a change of heart.)
My ideal world (in my head) is that human beings don’t interfere with animals at all (to eat, as pets, to showcase). We should interfere in only cases where it’s critical (like a natural disaster treating animals).
Is there a word for this viewpoint?
In San Francisco right now there's no "entire life on farm" meat on the market. If I want to eat your "ideal cow" that eats _mostly_ inedible foods I have to buy land and raise it myself or get it alive from a farm. It's not a product one buys for human consumption. Cows in the US eat mostly human edible foods.