Debate: Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.
Side: Yes, I agree.

Jace,You must certainly be aware that plants and animals are quite different. Even if plants have some level of intelligence, it must be vastly different from those of animals. "“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”" [1].That is what makes animals and plants distinct in a relevant way. Plants cannot suffer, yet animals can. Think of a pig compared to a sunflower plant. Even if scientists suddenly discovered plants were sentient, it takes less grain to feed a person on grain alone, as compared to animals. As seen in my previous post. "Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature." JaceA wild animal killing prey is fine. No morals are broken. "I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. " JaceYour analogy is flawed. A wild lion killing prey is a swift and merciful compared to what factory farmed animals must endure. Ever see a feral house cat chase down a wild animal? The feral cat does not toy with its prey. Instead, the prey is devoured almost instantly." If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?" JaceHumans are omnivores, in the sense that we can eat meat and non-meats. From a Darwin survival of the fittest point of view, it was to human advantage to eat meat over starvation. Yet, in modern times starvation is relatively rare. Especially in first world countries. As for physiological evidence humans stomach ph, small intestine length, and saliva suggest herbivore. [2]. "then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us?" JaceEvolution has not prepared humans to eat mass amounts of factory farmed meat. Even if evolution did prepare us, it would be immoral. Obligate carnivores with supplements can thrive on a vegan diet. "SufferingThis is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether." JaceHumans have abused animals long enough. Humans have proven they cannot be trusted to be kind to livestock. If more humane methods are developed, the profit motive will constantly tempt humans to put profit above animal welfare. Chickens are capable of feeling empathy. Chickens sense each others' pain. "HealthYour observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research."Michael Greger M.D. is a medical doctor who links to peer reviewed scholarly journals. You will notice this if you watch his videos. "Again, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether." JaceDo you understand trophic levels? That animal meat will never be as efficient as vegan foods."particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste." JaceInsects, this is a new retort. This is a strange answer. Do you really think humans would start eating insects en masse? "World HungerAgain, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not." JaceAgain, you argue for insects. Yet, offer no proof that insects are healthy and that people will be willing to eat enough of them to make a difference. Over a million people eat vegan already."Unacknowledged HarmsBanning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure." JaceLots of products and traditions have been banned in the past. Human sacrifices, slavery, DDT, and incandescent light bulbs. The change doesn't have to be overnight. Instead, non-vegan foods could be phased out slowly like incandescent light bulbs. Ten to fifty years to change over seems reasonable. LinksNote links might not come out right. 12