I think incremental progress is possible. I think rolling back and gag laws would make a positive difference in animal welfare because people would be able to film and show how bad conditions are inside.
I think that's worth pushing for. And it's more realistic than everyone stopping eating meat all at once.
If we had better animal welfare laws and meat became prohibitively expensive, I would be absolutely fine with that.
I think incremental progress is possible. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I'm not sure what makes you assume that about me. I'm well aware that there are more animals than humans?
It's clear that this is no longer a productive discussion about animal welfare.
----------------------------
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine."
"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative."
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
I'm not sure why you're not sure; the parent comment explained it already: your vision of an idealized pasture is incongruent with reality, namely because the number of animals and resources it would take to materialize and actually sustain such a system defies reason.
This was never a discussion about animal welfare, but about challenging industry-seeded assumptions which were not even being questioned. It is unfortunate this makes you feel threatened and requires a retreat from the conversation, but it is also typical.