How would you reply to the stance that all agriculture is exploitative? Surely the way to fix crop farming is to support a more natural approach that focuses on the quality of crop, soil, ecosystem? Once you get rid of animal agriculture you still haven't fixed the problem of plant agriculture, which I'd argue is actually a worse ecological disaster. 75% pollinator mass decline from pesticide use and destruction of natural habitat, which *will* lead to the collapse of world ecosystems in just a matter of time. I don't see how you could agree that minimizing the harm of plant agriculture is beneficial, but that of animal agriculture isn't. Unless you think farming in general should be banned...?
I would respond by saying that it is not true that all agriculture is exploitative. It is perfectly possible for people to produce corn without anyone being exploited at any point in production, that is not the same for animal agriculture. Veganic farming exists, farming co-operates exist, Fair Trade (while not perfect) exists. Animal products inherently involve exploitation, with very few exceptions. It is just not possible to package and sell the rib cage of a pig while not engaging in exploitation.
In plant agriculture, systems of exploitation are the result of choices that are made by the capitalist owners of the land and the means of production, to favour profit over people. It is perfectly possible to produce that same product, There is nothing about making chocolate that is inherently exploitative, the reason why so much chocolate is unfairly produced is because they it is made by corporations who want to make the most profit they possibly can. That can be changed.
However, in animal agriculture, exploitation is not an incidental part of producing animal products that you can conceivably remove with reforms or a different labour model, exploitation is fundamentally baked in to what the product is. Animals are both the exploited class who is producing the product (alongside some of the most exploited human workers on earth) and they are the commodity being sold for profit. These commodities cannot (for the most part) be produced without exploitation - it is inherent in the fundamental nature of what the product is. A pig is still being exploited if the worker taking their children from them then slitting their throat is unionised and paid fairly.
Now, fairly produced agricultural products are not very easy to obtain, that is the point I'd concede on the systematic exploitation in agriculture. Any just food system must involve a radical reinvention of plant agriculture, on top of a transition away from animal agriculture. I am a bit confused though as to why you're sort of excluding the possibility that we can both fix crop farming to make it fairer, more sustainable and less ecologically damaging, while also transitioning away from animal agriculture. Is there a reason these two possibilities should be treated as mutually exclusive?
I agree that plant agriculture is often ecologically disastrous, but I also think that the transition away from animal products would do much to address that by itself, since a full third of the planet's entire arable land surface is devoted solely to animal agriculture. We can far more efficiently feed a growing population by growing and eating plants directly, than filtering those nutrients through animal bodies who will generally consume far more calories than they produce. That lowered pressure on land and on the labour force would make the necessary environmental and labour reforms much more achievable.
I also didn't say that minimising the harm of animal agriculture is not desirable, the post I think you're responding to was about animal welfare reform, not environmental reform. I think would obviously be good thing if animal agriculture industries become more sustainable, it just isn't the goal that I am interested in pursuing with my work, since animal rights is my primary concern. This would be a more compelling argument if I objected to animal agriculture solely on the basis of environmental concerns, but that isn't the case.
That is why I am not interested in advocating for environmental reforms in animal agriculture, but it doesn't mean I don't think that animal agriculture industries cutting down less rainforests, pumping less poisonous effluent into our rivers and producing less GHG emissions would objectively be a good thing. I just also think that even if animal agriculture found a way to be net zero (likely functionally impossible but lets pretend), the breeding, exploitation and slaughter of trillions of animals in an environmentally friendly way would be fundamentally unethical.
If you're interested in further exploring food security and sustainability in the context of animal agriculture, and why sustainable animal agriculture is so unrealistic as a goal, I'd thoroughly recommend checking out George Monbiot's excellent and well-researched book: Regenesis: Feeding The World Without Destroying The Planet. He talks about a lot of these issues in a very balanced way, and does some really interesting interviews with food producers in both animal and plant agriculture to highlight the challenges of agricultural reform.
