Just to be clear, I wasn't by any stretch calling you a fascist; however humans can be called 'animal fascists' - I was one half my life, and I would own up to having 'animal fascist' friends. I used the term as one way of looking at a purely utilitarian view of animals, which I think is relevant to any ethical evaluation. Perhaps as our discussion moved around, our wires have been crossed a little as regards whether we are talking about where we are now, or where we are thinking we could or should be. If we are talking 'should be' then we don't have to put economics first, though it might be naive not to keep it on the table. If we talk purely from the basis of economics we can't really claim an ethical slant. Everyone being vegan from tomorrow morning would cause a problem for existing animals in captivity but forty odd million vegans might find a solution to sparing the lives of existing animals whose careers are being cut short in order that their progeny stop being viciously abused. I don't rate this 'endpoint' argument highly as a serious objection to anyone going vegan - that endpoint just can't happen at a very problematic pace. At the end of the day these beautiful bloodlines are artificial, and we would need to see where we were with all that. We should restore wild habitat and wildlife but it would be pointless to try to stake out a detailed plan that far; the will to go down the path needs to be developed first. I used to say if you can break out of jail, you don't wait until you decide what to have for lunch . Take good steps first, the endpoint will be considered when it comes into view. Cheers