Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

> Bivalves on the other hand... I do wonder if they are more like a plant than an animal in some ways.

Yes, almost like meat-plants. My own gratification for harvesting them it would be quality protein and omega-3 DHA/EPA (for health benefits). It's possible to supplement with algae-derived products for that, but they're expensive for a reason: it involves energy intensive production, which strictly speaking is not "green", or realistic for the majority of the population. ALA is also present in seed oils like canola, but the conversion to DHA/EPA is inefficient. It's not necessary for survival, but no one settles for mere subsistence. That will have to be balanced against the fact that compromises will have to be made whether we like it or not (overfishing of certain species is a problem, for instance, especially in east asia).

> This is a tough one, because I have no right to tell others how to eat or behave, let alone a group of people who has arguably been disadvantaged and robbed of their cultural roots over generations.

That is commendable. The reason I bring it up as a rhetorical device though is because activists often do care to tell people how to eat, categorically (it's ok, their prerogative), and since since culture is an uncomfortable minefield, that can soften positions or reveal kinks that are not immediately shared. Normally I hear "it's ok, because they do it respectfully", other times reiterating that it's still wrong for anyone to consume meat but keeping tight-lipped because.. yeah. At any rate moral ramifications are interesting to think about. The superseding impact of culture must reveal something about the value of animal life, versus human life. We are the arbiters of value.

> Isn't the consequence of deforestation potentially as harmful as many forms of animal agriculture? I rarely hear about it, but I suspect it causes the deaths of billions of animals both directly and indirectly every year. Damage to life in watersheds is immense and far-reaching, and deforestation plays a major role in it. As does all forms of agriculture, too; it requires serious attention.

There is a price to pay certainly, particularly with agriculture. We can only feed 8 billion people because of fossil fuels and related advances - if they disappeared overnight, we could not even feed half, and most of us would go back to working farm-land (80% of us). People also forget the millions of horses that were employed to work the fields before diesel-combusting machines replaced them, and that the greater portion of the labor was spent piling manure, and the yields were smaller, etc. Even with innovation, environmental encroachment and destruction will scale with demand and population, which has explained the increases in emissions in the last several decades.

I think population important to talk about, but erroneously is discounted as malthusianism by the far left sphere that now represents a good share of greens - yes, we can support a greater population, but not without environmental toll. Yes, immigration provides people a better life, and that better life constitutes the ability to consume as Westerners do, with a greater carbon footprint. That is what they're coming for. For conventional farming, abusers see little incentive to do better if demand just keeps going up. People do eat less meat than before, but there are more people demanding it. So maybe legislative pressure is the only way. Or maybe we should race to curb demand just as much as we try to innovate our way out of problems.

> I have a feeling it's generally absurd to appeal to pre-history as a reference for current behaviour ideals. I'm sure a case can be made for doing it in some instances, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I agree

> In this case I suspect I would prefer to live with agency and according to my nature, then die by chance rather than to live within the strict and typically abusive constraints and conditions of the system I will eventually be slaughtered in.

Nature, too, changes. For instance, through domestication. Without remembering the details, I think many species could only live in captivity - raising the question of euthanization as a moral choice (PETA would agree I guess). I figure if a chicken can peck at ants in the day and head to shelter at night (premium conditions I realize), it's living according to it's nature, and it's agency is unfettered.

Animals don't have any concept of morality or nature or captivity. This is why you can't blame them for their behavior. So in such a thought-experiment I don't think it's possible to have a preference.