Humans killing and eating animals

Since Con has forfeited Round 3, I will proceed to justify the killing and consumption of animals as a source of protein. Biologically speaking, humans have evolved/adapted to be omnivorous creatures. Our bodies require the nutrients, specifically the fatty acids and proteins, that are found abundantly in animal meat. This is a valuable source of nutrition that contributes to our growth and insulation, both from injury and disease. The proteins and fats that come from meat are necessary to our growth, and sustenance. Without meat, the human race would not be the dominant species that it is today. Economically, the meat industry allows proteins to be produced far cheaper, and more naturally than the produce industry. Meat can be produced organically, while produce crops are often exposed to genetic engineering as early as the seed stage, as well as pesticides and chemicals which can provide a synthesized version of vegetables, rather than a natural version. This manipulation can also lead to the breeding of diseases, which are then exposed directly into whichever market. One specific example is soy. Soybeans have been monopolized to a point where one organization owns approximately 90% of all soybean production, and has a patented, genetically altered seed. This is arguably the largest non-meat source of protein in the agricultural market, and it is a synthesized product, opening the door for many issues. Meat is also cheaper. Animals can be slaughtered throughout most of the year, providing a consistent and low price. Alternatively, most produce is subject to the restrictions of climate and geography, unless you take further measures to preserve them, driving up costs and opening up lanes for more risk. Hypothetically speaking: What would happen if the meat industry were to cease production tomorrow? Well, the first thing would be that at least half a million people would lose their jobs, and over 150 billion dollars in sales would be subtracted from the agricultural markets. Then there would undoubtedly be a chain reaction of lost jobs and profits while the economy and grocery markets struggled to balance themselves out. It would probably be at least a few years before any of this were stabilized, and millions of people's livelihoods would be at stake. In addition to this economic imbalance, we would observe a direct correlation in the massive overdrive of produce production. The already monopolized soy industry would exponentially raise prices, as this would be the largest protein source after the meat industry ceases production. We would be forced to further alter many species of plants, so that we could pack as many unnatural nutrients into synthesized seeds. In the end, this would also take years of perfecting before it could be considered completely successful. Finally, the meat industry consists of billions of animals, to a point of near overpopulation. Were the meat industry to cease, what would become of these animals? Where would they be housed? The risk of overpopulation would become a very real reality, and then what would happen to these animals as they died? Cattle-produced methane would pollute the atmosphere even more, and would farmers have to pay taxes on it? Beyond the economic, agricultural, and ecological troubles, you have the realistic possibility that many people would not be capable of making this drastic change in lifestyle. Elders, certainly would struggle with the absence of animal proteins. Then there would be issues that would undoubtedly arise from the minimized synthetic proteins and fatty acids. It wouldn't be natural, and could potentially turn hazardous. Once again, I will openly state that I believe factory farming is a terrible practice. However, it is not without purpose. People have every reason to eat meat, but I highly recommend that you do your research and know where your food comes from. Since Con has forfeited this debate, I argue that they are displaying poor conduct, and failing to provide any argument worthy of winning the debate. I will be re-challenging the debate back to Con on another page.