Meat production should be significantly reduced

Thank you, Lexicaholic for waiting patiently for my belated response. I had to attend my brother's Memorial Day weekend baseball tournament. Sorry for implying you were an idiot. I was tired when I wrote my last argument. I would also like to remind my opponent that this debate's resolution is "Meat production should be significantly reduced" not "Meat production for human use should be significantly reduced." My opponent has ambiguously asserted that "meat consumption" should be lowered instead of production. He seems to take it as an axiom, without informing me, that he means human consumption. >> "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)." << If an animal eats meat as a source of protein or some rich dude eats some Kobe beef, isn't that consumption? Let me give you the exact definition of ‘consumption' Consumption - the act of consuming, as by use, decay, or destruction. (Dictionary.com) >> "as I am concerned with human health and not the process of the production of meat, as my opponent is." << My third contention in my first post was concerning the fact that red meat raises mortality! >> "... 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." << Don't be distracted by the emphasis, the very first line reveals the fallacy of the statement. He conveniently forgot to put the word ‘human' between ‘in' and ‘consumption.' An overall decrease in production to levels below the previous rate of consumption while miraculously still having the same amount of consumption the same amount is impossible. Like I said before, you can't eat what hasn't been made. (and neither can an animal or a Kobe steak fan) My statement that poor people can't currently afford much, if any, steak in no way supports my opponent's argument. >> As increasing supply over demand would lower prices and allow the poor to get their fill of meat. << Now my opponent has switched tactics. Where before he said he wanted people to stop eating meat because it raises mortality etc, now he thinks all the poor people should be eating steak like the upper and middle classes. Then my opponent says that if meat production was lowered, poor people would get even less meat and starve "to an unhealthily low amount." But he forgets that if the grain that previously went into meat production was now free to be used for other purposes, there would be plenty to feed this poor, meat-deprived person. My opponent then tries to offer an alternative to the environmentally harmful current method of obtaining meat. It is unrealistic. No practical growth medium has been found for in vitro meat and I suspect one would be hard to produce. It would have to contain all the minerals that make meat so valuable in the first place, which means we might as well drink the growth fluid. Also, in vitro meat doesn't have much less of an environmental impact than normal meat production. All it does is clumsily slightly lower the impact. Therefore, meat production should be significantly reduced: to save our environment, starving people, and lifespan.