I appreciate the article. I can bare vegetarians more than vegans. But there are numerous faults and unfortunate "cause and effect" facts that remove some of the weight from your analysis.
Until I decide to do my own post about it, I will just mention these two:
every animal dies. In the wild their death is usually a traumatic and extrememly stressful event. This happens when, because of sickness or injury, they are too weak to outrun the predator anymore. At this point they are chased down and torn to death. This is a top reason to view hunting as a humane act. The clean shot is a quick and less painful death compared to the alternative. Additionally, as you and I both consume dairy and eggs, at some point the providing animal grows old and must die. Why not, in both of these cases, we consume this meat in respect to the animal and, since meat nutrition is quite dense, to so as to benefit from what otherwise would be waste. The alternative, would be to use these aged and hunted animals purely for dog food. Which would be fine, that is better than wasting them.
"How much meat are we fit to eat?
The evidence continues to mount, as more cancers and diseases are being linked to heavy meat consumption."
I would argue wholeheartedly that this link, if valid, has to do 100% with the meat animal's diet. Over the last 40-60 years we have fed our beef and chicken an increasing amount of corn and soy. Neither of these should ever be fed in high quantities. However, due in large part to government subsidies, these are the biggest bang for the buck, weight wise, to the meat cartel. Fat from a high corn diet is a leading cause of bad cholesterol, etc. Humans also should not be consuming large amounts of corn or soy. And when consuming corn, wheat, soy, etc, we are best suited eating fermented or aged grains. Though this NEVER happens in processed foods or mass produced flours.
If we were still eating grass fed, naturally raised, naturally(live in sun light and eat a large variety of plants and bugs) managed livestock, I doubt there would be any cancers, heart disease, etc from any meat consumption.
And along with that, if heavily processed food was not a thing; if chemical agriculture was not a thing.... The price of good quality meat would be comparable to the price of a vegetarian diet.
So, I appreciate your concern and your decision in the matter, but I feel you are burning the candle from the wrong end in an effort to find answers. Going about it the wrong way. But I do not tell vegetarians, vegans or DoritoLaysNabiscoMcDonaldsians can't eat how they choose. Everyone has a choice. I just I wish I didn't have to pay for their(at least the last category) bad decisions in the embodiment of Socialized Heathcare and Medicaid.
I think your prices quoted are probably accurate at the moment. What I said was:
" if chemical agriculture was not a thing.... The price of good quality meat would be comparable to the price of a vegetarian diet."
And that is partially a thing because of the farm subsidies you mentioned. Your last bullet point I totally agree with.
My prices were comparing organic agriculture to small scale organic, free range, grass fed animal agriculture. I think these prices will stay pretty much the same if chemical agriculture were not a thing.
I don't know. I think the huge market share that chemical and processed food holds really skews the market. I'm pretty sure there would be a huge change in prices if there was only local food, and more expensive exotic food.
But to be honest.... it is only speculation since we will never see a 100% overhaul unless there is a nuclear holocaust or some other really HUGE infrastructure changing event.
I guess if the only supply were small scale sustainable organic foods, the prices would change. But I’m not sure in which direction.