Freebase Dali

I probably should have clarified that I don't think nature "intended" anything in the sense that it is sentient and bears goals in mind. What I mean by nature's intent is simply that by whatever means nature came to be, it so happens that it operates in a way that sustains itself by default without our input. It implies that the balance of ecosystems, species, climates and all other natural occurrences that make up the functioning system are to be used as a comparative of what is naturally correct and incorrect.
In this context, I simply use the word intent as a shorthand of this. Keep this concept in mind as you read my remaining replies.

If you agree with me about the dangers of exponentially increasing populations, killing of forests, ecosystem upsets, overfishing, etc... and you don't want that to happen... then you agree that we must maintain balance if we don't eventually want to push every living wild animal to extinction. I agree with most that the meat industry is FAR too zealous with their product. If we reduce mass production of meat and limit the amount of production that happens, and also switch to strictly free-range systems, this will make meat a little harder to get for cheap which might be a good thing and people might stop eating so much of it. I do believe that a compromise has to be made if humans want to be at more of an equilibrium with the world we live in. I just don't believe your solution is the answer, especially considering that if we were to stop farming and eating meat altogether, we would undoubtedly need far more land to grow crops and vegetables on a scale large enough to supply a world population in the place of meat. You may then be at odds with your own position on land-mass usage.

I'll give you that. But just because members of the developed world and cultures can choose to stop eating meat because they're industrialized enough to entertain an ethical argument doesn't change anything except their own conscience and a fractional number of animals dying, in the grand scheme of life, death & pain.

Well simply making everyone an herbivore, animals included, would quickly screw up the ecosystem because there would be absolutely no predatory mechanisms keeping ecological destabilization in check and due to soaring populations, the plant life needed to keep these animals alive would be an exponentially dwindling factor, eventually resulting in... death.. pain... suffering. You don't like how nature works... but you have no choice but to accept it.

I understand that we can definitely make things better for the animals we farm, and definitely increase their perceived freedom, and even decrease the volume of processing we do. If anything, THAT's at least meeting halfway in the industry, but your wishes that it would all stop altogether isn't even halfway between your own values and nature, much less competing with values of other humans.

I think what's important is maintaining a balance, which you've already heard from me. I support toning our meat treatment and consumption DOWN. I do not support ceasing all meat consumption because it is not only impractical, but making meat consumption taboo throughout generations is only ensuring that options will be hard to come by if (or more likely, once) we come to a place where survival is actually a major factor again. To think we'll go on living this easy-get developed, industrialized life forever is a little naive.
I believe that humans, with all our choosing power, sometimes misplace our priorities. Sometimes our values get in the way too much, sometimes not enough. But I think that if we want something at least objective enough to compare by and know our actions aren't futile, we should look at nature because it has and will work correctly and efficiently, which is the most basic aspect of survival no matter how diluted with cultural value systems you are.
And as long as we make sure we don't interrupt that process, then we won't have any REAL problems.