My region is pretty granola. You can't throw a rock without hitting a backyard chicken, we got local cows all around, local everything small scale etc etc, I personally know two families who had apiaries (down to one—other's bees died during a winter), but meh, just easier to go without.

Not saying it's the case here, but I've never heard this argument raised in good faith, like by someone who is interested in reducing the amount of suffering caused by humans to non-humans. It's always brought up as some thought-terminating catch-22 device to just keep doing wtf ever you want to do anyway.

I am genuinely curious what you think we should do with this information, though. Like how has it influenced your own actions?

I saw your comments further down but I want to reply here because some people do sometimes make this argument in seriousness:

Like others said, if I could get all my nutritional needs met synthetically and/or photosynthetically (and still be healthy) I would be happy to. But as it stands, going entirely plant-based is the best and most practical way to minimize harm to all life - including plants. To consume animals you need to raise them, and it takes significantly more plants to raise an animal for food than it takes to eat the plants directly.

Unless you are recommending synthesizing food from base chemicals, there isn't another option. All life, excepting that which can photosynthesize, consumes other life for energy and materials.

The best we can do is mitigate suffering and environmental harm - factory farming is abhorrent - but until we have the Star Trek replicator pumping out TV dinners from the ether, we have to eat something.

Salad is murder!