FlowVoid

That depends on if they can keep their customer base.

If your local McDonald's left town and a place named Burgers-R-Us took its place, would the new restaurant sell as many burgers as the McDonalds did? I doubt it. McDonald's devotes vast resources to build its brand and get customers into their restaurants. Smaller companies don't have those resources.

Not all the knowledge is there. Some ingredients are imported, in order to protect trade secrets and ensure global consistency.

After Russia took over McDonald's, customers did notice a change in how the food tasted.

Another indicator is whether the people in a country still divide the world into "civilized" and "uncivilized" countries.

I'm not sure why you linked me to a chart of mammals. Hunting mammals may be a good way to feed a small population, but as you point out it's not feasible for the entire world.

Three fourths of all animal biomass is aquatic (fish, crustaceans, and mollusks), together accounting for 30-40 times more biomass than humans. Mollusks are the smallest component, but they still have more biomass than all the mammals in your link put together. Fish by themselves account for seven times as much biomass as all animal livestock put together. And crustaceans have even more combined biomass than fish.

I'm not even suggesting that people eat only fish. Rather, by including some fish in our diet we would reduce our reliance on farm-grown vegetables.

Globally, humans currently eat an average of 20 kg of fish/crustaceans/molluscs per year. That might be a bit too much, but I have no doubt that we could sustainably eat 10-15 kg per year.

What makes you think I'm shitposting?

I am perfectly serious when I say that I believe veganism is incompatible with the stated goal of reducing animal deaths.

And I am serious when I say that I have increased my intake of wild fish to support that goal, even though it is not my only goal.

To me, the unspoken goal of veganism is to protect appealing animals at the expense of unappealing animals. That is why they show pictures of farmed cows, but not flooded rice fields. I can't ever get behind that goal.

I think that is the best way to avoid unnecessary animal deaths (honey is also on that list).

It is something I often consider when shopping, but I don't always try to minimize unnecessary animal deaths. Just as I generally try to avoid big box stores and products made in certain countries, but sometimes buy those things anyway.

Why do I make exceptions? Because I don't believe that every single thing I do needs to be aimed at improving the world. It is simply an aspiration.

I don't need to jump in a lake for the same reason I don't need to operate a farm. It is equally moral if others do it for me, so I buy wild fish and vegetables from my grocery just like most people.

Also, pure veganism isn't necessary. For example, honey is not vegan but producing honey likely kills fewer animals than producing almonds. Beekeeping might even be a net positive given the benefits to the ecosystem at large

People do kill feral dogs and cats. Even PETA does this. Morally, they should be eaten afterwards.

A wild fish can kill other animals every day. Cats do kill a lot of birds, but not quite at the same rate since they can also subsist by scavenging.

So while it's moral to kill and eat feral cats, wild fish are preferred. Even if you have to pay someone to catch them.

Dog meat is farmed. The whole point is to avoid farmed food when possible, whether it's plant or animal.

So neither pure fish based nor pure plant based, but rather a combination of the two. Also one could occasionally eat other wild animals obtained via hunting, like deer.

Well, since farming vegetables kills more animals than killing a wild fish, it makes sense to include wild fish in my diet.

Animal farming isn't going to be abolished in my lifetime. And I can't make decisions for everyone.

So the relevant question is what I should do, personally, to reduce my personal impact. A purely vegan diet is not the answer.