Meat production should be significantly reduced

My thanks to my opponent for his brilliant response. I will endeavor to answer with equal skill and consideration. My opponent contends that (1) in arguing that a reduction in consumption in meat occur, I have necessarily argued for a reduction in production of meat and (2) that the laws of capitalism would ensure that a reduction of consumption would actually generate a reduction in production. These contentions are not necessarily true. A reduced rate of meat consumption may lead to a reduced rate of meat production for humans as a consequence of supply and demand, but in the face of a changing market there is an alternative to dissolution: adaptation. Perhaps meat production will continue unabated as a source of protein in animal foods, or for use in biology experiments, or perhaps it will become more specialized and cater to the wealthy who often have peculiar tastes (more Kobe beef). Even if it does, my call to reduce consumption would not be diminished, as I am concerned with human health and not the process of the production of meat, as my opponent is. As such, I have neither called for the reduction of production of meat, nor does capitalism necessarily imply a reduction in demand for meat (rather only a reduction in demand for that particular purpose). Additionally, my opponent seems to believe that I do not understand the difference between consumption and demand. That would make me an idiot. I do not believe I am an idiot, and much to my delight, my prior argument bears that point out. As I stated previously ". .. a significant decrease in production without a correlating decrease in consumption would not reduce DEMAND but rather raise the value of meat, as the supply would no longer be sufficient to meet the DEMAND at its pre-reduction rate. " Emphasis mine. So clearly arguments my opponent makes from that point of contention were spent attacking a strawman. I am happy to burn that strawman to the ground, that we might continue our focus on the real issues of the debate. ;) As for my opponents contention that "[p]oor people already can't afford meat such as steak so it won't affect them," that is actually an argument for increased production, as increasing supply over demand would lower prices and allow the poor to get their fill of meat. As such, my argument is bolstered by my opponent's contention. Furthermore, I never spoke to the dietary concerns of those who had ease in affording meat, nor did I suggest that some would be left with no meat at all. I merely stated that where demand outstripped supply, significantly, those who already had difficulty affording meat would be unable to afford the same amount as before, and would eat less, perhaps to an unhealthily low amount. I almost never argue in absolutes. As for my opponent's contention that I have not yet addressed the issue of the environmental impact of meat production, and his contention that we must consider the loss of grain that could be used to feed the world's hungry, I propose the following solution: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . No feeding, no methane gas, no mess, no worries. No decrease in production. For all of these reasons, I contend that it is upon consumption of meat, and not upon production of meat, that we must focus our efforts of dissuasion.