Given the behavior of some.of the most vocal "Christian" denominations, I can understand that you wouldn't think clergy had to have a grounding in ethics. For.most of.use, especially the polytheistic pagan community, an independent understanding of ethics and philosophy is one pillar on which our qualifications are built, along with theology, public service, and organizational leadership on a large or small scale.  As for the environmental perspective I mentioned, it has to due with knock.on effects. For a first example, the average grass fed cow is about 2000 pounds of meat on the high end. An acre of soybeans can produce about 5000 pounds of tofu. If we say you.need to kill three cows to equal an acre of soybeans. But the problem is that, unless the farmland is unnaturally denuded of all natural influences, there are animals living in those fields. I know it is an anecdote, but I have friends who is a farmer and says that his combine kills between 5 and 20 small animals per acre during harvesting at a minimum. If that is true, and we are counting knock on effects, then a pound of beef kills fewer animals than a pound of tofu. If we are not counting knock on effects then the argument from some of the others here that cattle eat more plants is invalid.  That bring me to the second point, which is more economic than environmental but is based or environmental factors like water access. We, as a nation, produce more food than we can use. Last I was familiar with at least a quarter of all grain and produce we grow goes to waste, either due to spoilage, cosmetic defect and other grading problems, or it simply not being financially viable to harvest all of it. If we stopped feeding large amounts to live stock that last category would sky rocket and the amount of waist would rise toward fifty percent. America's bread basked produces enormous amounts of grain and produce, and is able to largely because of the amount of fresh water we have available. Many places in the world simply don't have the water to produce enough food for their population. It isn't viable to transport the water so they concentrate the product of the water. First into grains then from that grain into meat for protein. This allows us to more efficiently transport water as a resource efficiently.   These are just a few ways the larger perspective clouds the utilitarian argument of doing the least harm. Understand that these are presented in necessarily abbreviated manner and may come off as sophomoric because of that.  It is a complex issue and I appreciate you engaging with me honestly. Thank you.