Yes it is actually hard to kill a chicken per day, which is why societies that have to grow and kill their own food don’t eat a chicken per day.
Only the hyper-industrialized meat producers get even close to that.
Only the hyper-industrialized meat producers get even close to that.
It is economically not viable for every American family to produce and kill their own 2lb of (currently, on average) consumed meat per day. That is why we have factory farming and why it dominates our food supply: economies of scale. The lack of these economies is why you objectively and in actual fact do not see the same scale of meat consumption in less industrialized food systems.
It has nothing to do with whether it’s physically or psychologically possible to kill x chickens per day.
> "your kids’ reaction"
Maybe this should be "my reaction as a kid", since you don't know that person's kids.
> "The emotions one feels"
Should be "the emotions I feel"
> "If people had to see their livestock suffer, they would make a different calculation"
Should probably be "seeing it changed how I feel".
People are more than the sum of our experiences, two people raised in the same environment with the same kind of experiences can have completely divergent values. Therefore it's wrong to assume that people would share your values if they had your experiences. In the case of meat eating particularly this should be obvious; the reality is that most people exposed to the industry, either for the first time as adults or as kids, don't turn vegetarian.
I’m putting my bet on what those experiments would show, which is people’s consumption patterns would be adversely impacted by more in-depth knowledge of the food supply chain.
This is also where meat producers place their bets and why they fight tooth and nail against transparency within their industry.