I agree that this is probably realistic but still incredibly difficult to call 'humane'.
Here's a definition from a quick web search:
Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion.
Would you say that an individual who has the choice not to kill an animal and does it anyway is doing a 'humane' thing? Does it make difference where that killing happens?
That's fine, you can pick your example of choice then.
Person A is presented with ethical dilemma X. They are in a position where they can freely make a choice.
Person B is presented with the same ethical dilemma X. They are not in a position where they are able to freely make a choice.
Person B is not obligated to try to pick the more ethical choice in dilemma X, since they are unable to freely make a decision.
I'd argue the most ethical course of action is to halt the breeding of additional animals for the purpose of slaughter. We have complete control of the situation here: not all wild animals die gruesome deaths, but a livestock animal's fate is decided far before they are even born. It feels a little less than 'humane'.
In case you missed it, I made a point of scoping this ethical question to people who do have the means to make choices with their consumption. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to make ethical choices provided that they are able.
I wouldn't tell someone not to shoot an oncoming attacker because murder is unethical. In the same vein if someone has no choice in what they can eat, it would be ridiculous to tell them to try to 'make ethical choices'.
Call it whatever you prefer. The fact is there are millions of vegans and vegetarians in the world today who are very much alive.
A person who exclusively eats fruit is technically adhering to a vegan diet. A person who exclusively eats kraft singles is technically adhering to an omnivorous diet. There are wrong ways to do both.
The point I was trying to make with my earlier comment is that the people wasting away don't represent the average vegan/vegetarian. They are outliers who make for good headlines.
Is it not the intent? A farmer generally isn't going to raise an animal for fun. That wouldn't be profitable, and small farms are already difficult to make a living on.
I can entertain the idea that I could walk up to a farmer and ask them what their intent is, and they reply, "why it's to extract nutrition from land that is otherwise unproductive, of course!". But the end result is the same in either case regardless of stated intent: animals are being killed unnecessarily.
To be clear, none of this applies to people who rely on animal products to survive (e.g. people in the unproductive land you mentioned). I'm talking about people like myself (and likely many others here) who have access to supermarkets and other products of a globalized food system. Like Uncle Ben said, with great ~~power~~ privilege comes great responsibility.
There are similarly many stories of omnivores who have died of malnourishment. Is this a valid case against meat eating?
A substantial percentage of people have access to food systems that allow them to thrive on plants alone, freeing them from a dependence on animal products. For these individuals, is 'ethically sourced meat' even possible? That is to say: if we know that killing a living being is unnecessary, is it ethical to do it anyway?
If your question is genuine, these small farms you speak of are still breeding animals with intent to slaughter them. At the end of the day, the only meaningful difference with a small farm is that you can probably shake the hand of the person who needlessly killed an animal. Can't get that at those big mean factory farms, that's for sure.
I think this response is just a natural demonstration of empathy. not a bad thing, if you ask me!
I think ethical meat can only truly exist in theory (though with cell culture meat I suspect that that will change).
Anyway, I just wanted to say 17 years is a long time. Thanks for walking the talk. Not many people do.