Let's not forget that most of the world kills and eats our animal friends when they can just eat plants instead.
For most of us, animal products are no more necessary than Chinese traditional medicine.
Of course some people truly do depend on animal protein. Almost anyone reading this almost certainly doesn’t.
That makes it seem at least a little bizarre that we ridicule TCM yet continue munching animals on a daily basis.
If you’re only concerned about conservation then farming wouldn’t be a concern at all. It just depends on where you’re looking from.
In the context of industrial western narions, there is nothing behind this argument except arrogance and superiority complex.
(For maximum efficiency we now combine both, of course, but it's indstrial farming that's the real killer, not cow farts.)
If you get rid of animal farming you'll also get rid of a substancial amount of agriculture (not all of it if course, humans will still need to eat, but not as much as cows, pigs, chickens etc combined)
So either we go back to the same total population we had thousands of year ago or we start thinking how we can be more efficient with our food.
Humans raise animals on grass, but relatively few animals. If we only eat grazed cattle, then very few people will get to eat it — or — we would all need to eat far less of it.
Further, evidence of grazing storing carbon effectively has been largely debunked, and it’s clear now that grazing land would likely be best left to the wilderness, allowed to be restored as forest or meadow or whatever it was. We stand to gain far more from allowing natural ecology develop and thrive than from eating more steak.
No you cannot scale up grass fed meat, you should not, and the entire idea is so full of holes it can barely hold itself anymore.
I'll need a citation on that, because the world certainly doesn't lack grazeable grass.
(Cattle is fed farmed grains today because it's more efficient logistically, not because there's a shortage of grass.)