naught

So you are arguing that because a ruthless and uncaring system is responsible for creating massive suffering, it doesn't matter? It's awfully convenient that we don't have to care about cruelty when it's inherent in the system. People created these systems. We have the capacity to reduce the suffering. Why wouldn't you want that?

If dogs were raised in these conditions, people would be outraged (see korea, china, puppy mills, etc.) It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Please show me that factory farming is overwhelmingly not cruel

Animal agriculture is necessarily cruel. It is efficient. By your logic, this cruelty is negative. It sounds like we are very close to agreeing, frankly

Would you kick a dog in the street? Shoot a cat with a bb gun? These are things that happen with frequency, but I wouldn't do because I think that causing pain to another animal, senselessly, is a bad thing.

Would you raise a chicken in complete darkness for its whole life? Would you raise a cow in a suffocatingly small pen among its excrement? Impregnate a cow constantly and steal its babies away for meat so you can continue to milk it until it dies? Animals feel pain. They communicate, they suffer, they mourn.

If you can supply an argument that causing suffering of innocent animals is good/doesn't matter, I'm all ears.

This seems to reinforce my point. Surely 75% of production is not simply wastage otherwise. This is even ignoring the fact that I provided a source showing that deforestation by soy is far less problematic than it used to be.

Can you supply a source for this please?

We have agency over our actions and the ability to reduce the negative impacts we have on the world. We are unique in this ability, and we should exercise it

You can't appreciate a philosophical argument on a philosophical issue? I suppose that can be valid. It seems to me you don't want to consider the ideas I have raised in good faith

It's simple economics. Less demand, less supply.

Can you supply a convincing argument for suffering? We are fully capable of living with much, much less meat production. Why should we continue to inflict pain on things which can experience it? It seems manifest to me

This was the case, and is certainly problematic. Take it a step further -- who or what is consuming that soy? Animal agriculture, by and large. Therefore this is an argument for veganism, or at least reducing consumption.

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/victories/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-soy-moratorium-success/

I like to give people questions to ponder and explore. I think my arguments are very clear from the questions I have raised. Suffering of conscious beings is a negative thing. Particularly the egregious conditions in which we raise our "meat". This isn't even considering the horrible conditions that humans suffer working in and around the meat industry.