Belcampo, White Oak Pastures, Salatin Farms, Joyce Farms, and a host of others are all using animal based agriculture to have a negative carbon footprint, restore topsoil environments, and improve the world.
Sure, there are better ways to do plant agriculture, but natural wilderness is an ecosystem. The best method for restoring the environment is going to involve animals.
Now, you could create a system of plant agriculture that uses grazing animals solely as a means to restoring soil environments and removing carbon from the air, but it is going to be much, much harder to switch to this system than if the animals have market value as products.
I believe we are also evolutionarily adapted to eating meat as a necessary component of our diet for optimal health.
As far as your moral arguments, I will always respect someone who chooses abstinence for moral reasons. I do not have a moral problem with eating meat, especially meat that is from regenerative agriculture sources, or hunting.
You do, and your reasons are perfectly sound. I am not going to challenge your moral stance, I'll only say that I personally don't have an issue with eating meat for moral reasons.
I support the most humane methods and would like to source as much meat as I can from hunting, where I am forced to be the direct killer of the animals I eat, but I don't have issue with the act of eating meat.
You say research shows a link between meat and disease? That's not true. Research shows correlation between meat consumption and disease in the Western world, where meat has been villified since the 1940s.
You know what else has strong correlation? Molasses consumption and divorce rates.
Correlation does not equal causation, and there are strong biases at play that can easily explain the correlation between meat and mortality that have nothing to do with the true health qualities of meat.
In Asia, where meat is viewed as a health food and a wealth symbol, meat consumption correlates strongly with improved health.
At the end of the day, you need to look at intervention research where groups of people are given a specific diet and then observed, rather than surveying people on what they already eat.
Without this level of control, it is impossible to make true scientific links between cause and effect. You are only ever making theories and hypotheses.
As it happens, intervention studies of the kind I reference HAVE been done. Meat consumption has shown no negative influence in these studies.
Heck, even in meta-analysis of meat consumption in general, the huge majority of meat and negative health consequences is related to nitrates. If you only look at nitrate-free meat, there is very little correlation between meat and disease.
You seem to have your heels dug in though. These are my views. I have vetted them and read the studies. I agree with my points and believe I have a stronger argument than you, so for now, I'm going to maintain my position on the subject.
If I'm wrong then I hope clearer data comes to surface soon but for now I truly don't think I'm wrong, though I am always open to that possibility.