What xenoestrogen rich foods are you speaking of specifically? Soy has xenoestrogens but there isn't really much evidence to indicate dietary soy has a measurable negative outcome on health.

The public association of soy with xenoestrogens is what I was talking about, not actual consumption. Soy's a good dietary staple but it's hampered by the (probably incorrect) perception that it's going to feminise men.

Soy also has negative associations on the subcontinent. To the point where I have to overcome a bit of an ick reflex to eat soy, similar to eating ham (being from a Muslim country). My mom thinks soy causes cancer.

I have never heard this - the local ISKCON temple serves soy nuggets at their Sunday dinners without any outcry and the Pakistani Shan masala boxes I use often call for soya leaves.

> but the assertion that raising and slaughtering your own animals is evil relies on the unproven assertion that animal deaths are inherently wrong even after a good life. Anyone who ever owned a pet, or witnessed young foals or calves actually growing up naturally, will have noticed these animals to dream, to be joyful, frustrated, gleeful, or moody. They play, they enjoy learning stuff and have personalities - in short, they are sentient beings with a subjective experience, even if that experience is very different from ours - there is no way to know.

We do not let people kill elderly humans, even if they lived a good life. What is the fundamental difference between a human and an animal, if both experience their existence, both can suffer, and both really want to stay alive?

We don’t eat other humans for sustenance (most of us, at least).

Death is natural. Entire ecosystems are based on animals killing and eating each other. Are they evil? I don’t believe so. Our conscience allows us to take a higher moral ground, but eliminating meat consumption entirely is not necessarily the end goal.

I think your question is going to have a different answer for everyone, but for me:

A) The average human fears and understands death even at several removes, and in particular would understand they were being raised for slaughter. I don't believe this to be the case for most farm animals. I don't believe chickens suffer from expectation in the same way humans would, and I wouldn't eat e.g. great apes because of the possibility that they might.

B) It is unacceptable to allow the killing of humans and the desecration and consumption of human remains except in some extreme cases, because doing so would harm our social fabric and make still-living humans feel awful. This protects even humans who wouldn't be able to understand abstract future harms.

C) Also, it feels wrong, and killing a chicken doesn't. I know this answer is likely dissatisfying to you because you feel that killing a chicken is also wrong, but we're all making choices by gut feeling to some extent.

I think generally I agree with you. Though I'd argue proving anything about morality is practically impossible. Let's take an example of something that was for thousands of years across many cultures and to some degree is still seen as acceptable or morally justifiable behavior, slavery. While I personally believe it is reprehensible, I would be hard pressed to "prove" this in a way that doesn't rely on value judgements along the chain of reasoning.

I can't prove or disprove that industrial scale exploitation of mammals is morally wrong. As a society we see this as morally acceptable, what if we are wrong?