> was that the ecology balance in nature would break down if humanity suddenly stopped eating meat.

We don't eat tend lake fish, we eat fish from the sea. Fisheries stocks are collapsing from over fishing.

Farming, and farming of animals, has caused extensive ecological damage. Large areas of rain-forest have been cut to provide space for grazing animals; desertification occurs when cattle over-graze areas; some species are lost because land is given to cattle; animal waste in large enough quantities is toxic pollution and some management systems just intensify the problem (eg, Holland had a slurry lake for years); some modern farm animals are over-bred genetic freaks and they wouldn't survive without farmers.

Really, if humans suddenly stopped eating meat and fish over night the environment would probably be better, not worse.

If we suddenly stopped eating meat, we would put several species into extinction. Maybe that would be an acceptable loss, but letting several species go extinct to "prove" how wrong we humans are would not be the way I would promote ecological improvement.

Better to deal with the issues where they are. Over fishing should be dealt with. Countries are just now realizing that the sea doesnt stop at the border. If they could put so much money and effort into ACTA/SOPA, then maybe they could put some energy into fixing this? If US can put countries in a naughty list because some country didn't jump and enforce to US copyright law, maybe EU could put countries on a naughty list because they don't follow follow fishing rules.

I don't know how effective it would be to enforce such a policy. If you put up strict welfare requirements on farmers in your country then people would simply buy cheaper meat from elsewhere without the regulations.

So it's actually more effective to have low welfare requirements that are only slightly better than those abroad in order to keep prices competitive so that people buy from the farms with marginally better conditions.

The only other solution would be to impose a high import tax on meat from countries that did not meet the same standards.

English pig farmers faced this for a while.

Vegetarians pushed for stricter welfare requirements, but then did not buy the product. English people for a long time were buying Danish bacon, thinking it was higher quality. (Luckily, Danish farmers voluntarily moved to higher welfare standards, and now English bacon has got a better reputation.)

> So it's actually more effective to have low welfare requirements that are only slightly better than those abroad in order to keep prices competitive so that people buy from the farms with marginally better conditions.

I think it's better to have decent welfare standards, and then to educate consumers about the differences between local farms and distant farms. Scandals like the "horse meat in ready meals" help to educate consumers about the importance of knowing where meat is produced.

Import duties are also helpful, but there are problems with world trade organisations.

That's an interesting point, animal welfare seems to be a relatively boolean issue. People who care about it go vegetarian/vegan whereas others will mostly go for cheap meat.

I imagine there are not that many people who want to eat meat but are happy to pay much of a premium for better conditions.

So pretty much all the demand for meat is demand for cheap meat rather than "ethical" meat. Maybe if vegetarians started eating meat but did so by creating market demand for meat produced under better conditions this would actually be a net benefit for animal welfare as some high density farming would be converted to lower density?

So, you're suggesting that vegetarians change their own lifestyles so that those with (to use your example) "less" moral quandaries and more fiscal concerns don't have to change theirs?

Seems like an odd way to go about addressing the problem.

Kind of, if you have gone vegetarian for ethical reasons you have demonstrated willingness to change your behaviour.

There's an odd logic to this that I'm having difficulties refuting. Rationality for a win... ?

I would fully support a increased import tax on meat from countries with lower standards of animal care. In Sweden where I live, meat produced here is about 2x more expensive than meat made elsewhere. I would also like to see a max amount of h20 in the meat, as meat made from "where it is cheapest" tend to be made of 20% water. Both would help in making regulated meat more competitive against imported unregulated meat.