grue0

So until we can give a precise, reductionist definition of what suffering is - and enumerate all that can/can't experience it - then animal treatment is not an ethical question? Given a hammer and a choice to hit either a kitten or a rock for $10, what distinctions between the two would you make to help your decision? I think a central nervous system and/or an analogue for a response that we recognize as pain are a decent starting point.

What proportion of meat-based meals are eaten instead of plant-based meals specifically because of that lack of human ready plant food being available?

Do the bacteria which are targeted by plant antibiotics pose a similar risk to humans as the bacteria that affect livestock such as pigs?

It might be ethical to euthanize a majority of cows etc., if it could be done instantaneously, painlessly, and somehow without creating humanitarian or environmental issues. It would have to be a perfect hot swap, though.

When technology and space exploration allows, I would also support simply relocating these Earth species en masse to other customized planets where they can live/suffer/die in more natural or "fair" terms without our systematic interference.

Can plants suffer?

How much energy/resources/time does it take to raise plant food sources vs an analogous amount of animal food sources?

Do plants require antibiotics to raise at scale?

What are the environmental tolls taken by raising plants vs animals?