In the face of a growing world population, the question of how to secure sufficient food supplies for the latter in the future is becoming increasingly important. Many people argue that factory farming is essential to feed the world. Others, like the Jeremy Coller Foundation, state that factory farming consumes our planet’s scarce resources, contributes to global warming and pollution, spreads drug-resistance, and exacerbates undernourishment and malnutrition. The aim of this essay is to show that factory farming is not only an inappropriate solution to feed the world since the negative impact on nature and mankind exceeds the benefit of continuing to feed people in the current manner, but should also be abolished due to the beneficial prospects of a changed attitude towards nutrition.

David Leyonhjelm’s report as of 2013 “Factory farming is essential to feed the world” points out that there are no technically or economically viable alternatives to large scale intensive production for the bulk of the livestock-derived food required in the cities, where virtually all the population growth will occur and that given limits on the availability of land, water, waste disposal and other resources, significant increase in productivity will be needed. Certainly, it is true that the number of people living in big cities is constantly increasing due to better employment prospects, and that food supply in this context poses a challenge. However, in the face of the fact that 30% of the world’s total land surface is used to support livestock and livestock production uses at least one quarter of the world’s fresh water even by means of intensive animal farming, which accounted for 40% of world meat production in 2005, it becomes apparent that we are running out of scarce resources like land and water if we continue to rely on animal farming as protein supplier for a growing population.

One of our biggest concerns nowadays is global warning. We might still not be absolutely sure to what extend human activity contributes to the hole in the ozone layer, however, taking into consideration that it might be too late once we will be sure, it seems reasonable to pay significantly more attention to the preservation of the nature. The livestock sector (15%) produces more of the global greenhouse gas emissions than the transport sector (14%). Doesn't the support of animal farming undermine all our efforts to reduce the greenhouse effect?

Millions of people want to enjoy more meat, eggs and dairy products in their diet, including many now emerging from poverty. But one third of the grain’s harvest is fed to animals while there are at the same time 805 million undernourished people globally. Based on results of the University of Minnesota (2013), the Jeremy Coller Foundation even states that an additional 4 billion people could be fed if these grains were grown for humans. These figures suggest that animal farming is less aimed at securing the food supply for the entire global population than at satisfying the economically profitable growing demand of an increasingly prosperous population, thus raising ethical questions on the equal treatment of humans and an appropriate treatment of animals and the nature.

Many people still believe that eating meat is substantial for a healthy diet, and it sure was in the past when our resources for nutrition were limited. Livestock farmers do not make money unless they take proper care of their animals. If the animals were suffering from the unspeakable cruelties so often attributed to factory farming, they would be dying like flies. Investigations of organizations like Animal Equality and Human Society International show a different picture. Meanwhile, we have developed lots of alternatives for a healthy diet, and growing numbers of vegetarian and particularly vegan people show that prospects to lead a healthy – sometimes even longer life – based on plant-based diet are promising. We should finally trespass the threshold of killing on a daily basis particularly if figures show that it mainly serves the purpose of satisfying our luxury needs. Mankind has made great technical, industrial, and economic progress, but it is lagging behind ethical progress.

Increasing the killing threshold, especially for animals entrusted to us, could not only result in a gain for the same, but also in a gain for the entire mankind. Since more reluctance towards the killing of animals should result in more reluctance towards killing in general.