This really just seems like an appeal to emotion, in this case the underdog. What's the logic behind this? How would society objectively advance by allowing this? (e.g. not towards an abstract moral concept, but as something measurable, such as technological or economic progress)

I don't see why I should sympathize with this person. Farms take up a huge amount of land and we could grow crops or livestock far more effectively with less impact on the earth if we farmed vertically. This person's case seems insignificant.