Oh, cool! We made it to the war zone!!

The application of moral precepts to the food chain is just not as clear-cut and "eating A is good" and "eating B is bad".

The food chain predates the development of human morality by 3 billion years at least. It developed in amorality and continues that way.

Observe the food chain and this is what you see:

Some animals eat living plants.
Some animals kill and eat other living animals.
Some plants eat other living plants (Mistletoe, for example).
Some plants kill and eat living animals (the Venus flytrap, for example).

What can we conclude from this? Is the meat-eating Venus Flytrap less moral than the plant-eating Mistletoe? The question is silly because human moral standards are irrelevent to the food chain.

The morality of the food chain seems to be this:

1. Every living thing is food for something else.
2. Eat or be eaten.
3. Don't waste your food.

Obey the morality of the food chain and you, your progeny, and your species are rewarded with an improved chance of survival.

Ignore it, and you, you progeny, and your species will become extinct pretty quickly.

In the face of these realities, the high-minded ideals of "avoiding killing" and "minimizing pain" become unaffordable luxuries.

If we are "destroying the planet" it is only because we have done a masterful job of harnessing the food chain to our own benefit. We are still not as successful as insects and fungus but we're making progress.

***
On the question of feelings: I love animals. I love them to the point that I am an animal rescue volunteer. I presently have 12 cats living in my house - 4 of my own, and 8 as temporary fosters awaiting placement in good homes. Over the years my details records indicate that 231 cats have passed through my doors. 206 were eventually adopted elsewhere, 2 disappeared after a burglary, and 11 died of natural causes.

Cats are obligate carnivores - they must eat lots of meat to survive. I could have saved thousands of other animals by just allowing area animal shelters to kill the 231 cats I rescued. By the convoluted "morality" of animal rights, would this slaughter have been justified?

***
I'll try to explain my point of: "It's ok that I shot him, you honor, because I felt bad about it afterwards". (This was a part of my reponse to your explanation of vegetarianism: "I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life. ")

The point is this: attempting to avoid evil, and failing, is not a moral good. If an alternative to vegetarianism is more efficient in avoiding evil (by being less cruel), then it is morally superior to vegetarianism. Meat-eating is such an alternative:

Eating 1-2 pounds of beef a day, I could live for over a year on the death of just one big grazing cow.

Eating 1-2 pounds of grain a day for a year involves: clearing an acre of land (countless deaths of plants, mice, voles, birds, etc), fertilizing that land (countless deaths of fish from the run-off), spraying pesticides (killing the countless insects, and more birds and mice), harvesting the grain (by uprooting and killing the plants), then grinding up the grain (killing it, too).

The score:

Meat-eating: 1 death (the cow) per year per eater.
Vegetarianism: at least 1 million deaths (both plants and animals) per year per eater.

The morally superior victor at minimizing deaths:

Meat-eating, by a factor of about 1 to 1,000,000.