Eating animals is immoral and wrong in 1st world countries

To begin, It is a lot easier that my opponent is not religious and I do not have to present an argument I don't believe in for a side I do. Next, "But does that make it moral to waste resources? " it is not moral to waste resources, But livestock is a resource. If everyone were to turn from livestock and instead focus on plant life, The livestock present would be wasted greatly. " would you be fine with breeding and eating humans" I am not fine with eating humans, Because that is cannibalism. But cows aren't humans. It is morally wrong to feed a pig bacon, But to feed a pig a different species would be more or less alright because pigs are omnivores just like us. From one of the links you have posted I found this. "Today, Millions of animals are denied the freedom to experience these basic pleasures because they are confined in cages, Kept in isolation or crowded in sheds without access to a natural environment. " This is exactly what I meant by free range and basic luxuries. Animals are sapient, But they do not have the levels of intelligence of cavemen, The earliest men. Animals on farms do not have the capacity to use tools. There have been no cases of primitive animal art or anything similar to cave paintings. Nothing has been demonstrated beyond basic memory in farm animals. Lastly, There have been no recorded cases of animals on a farm taking revenge or inferring anything. This is why animals are lower than us even though they are living beings. Adult humans are on the top of the food chain. We can defeat any animal we want if we put our minds to it. No animal preys directly on us for food. We earned our rights to eat the animals we have clawed our way past to survive. Now we are on the top, Some of the predators that used to control the populations of these animals have died off or changed targets. If the ~300 million Americans joined the ~8 million Americans in not eating meat, Then what would happen to the meat? Would it be kept alive? If it was kept alive, There would be 40 million cows, 72 million pigs and 8 BILLION chickens. If all of those animals were suddenly in competition for the grain industry for their entire lives instead of until they die of natural causes. The irrigation systems we have would not support all first world humans, Plus the animals we stopped eating. Animal populations would spike, Starvation rates would spike, And after only a few deaths from starvation, Humans would have to go back to eating animals to survive. Another option would be to purge the animals. Which would be much, Much less humane than eating them because their remains would be wasted anyways. First world countries can support vegetarians, But not a 100% ratio plus animals. The in-between would be to continue killing animals at the same rate, But not eating them. This would probably be the most pointless of them all, Because the inhumane part of eating meat is the killing of the animals, And If meat wasn't wanted, The animals would either continue to die or cause starvation of humans. Not to mention that methane from cow flatulence partially contributes to global warming. To conclude, Most humans eating meat, Especially in first world countries, Is completely moral. The population of animals is the exact amount to satisfy the needs of the people, While still allowing vegetarians to avoid eating meat, And all without great amounts of waste. It is moral for animals to be eaten, And to change in either direction would be a disaster scenario.