If you have to kill something, or destroy something, at least have a good reason for doing so.

Cutting down a whole forest for no reason is not a good way to behave.

If I'm buying meat in the store I'm definitely paying for it to be replaced.

I don't see why a good reason is necessary when it comes to a renewable resource.

I support demanding good reasons for non-renewable resources.

In the same way I think it's not productive to call an animal that will killed "cold cuts", I don't think it's productive to refer to a living animal as a "renewable resource".

Also implying that you can kill and waste as many of them as you like simply because you paid for it is not productive either.

In all honesty, it's disappointing to see people refer to living creatures this way.

I'm not trying to be insulting by calling things resources. Even the most important things like time are renewable in some important contexts.

Waste is not productive by definition, not sure where you're going with that. It's bad economically but not morally.

To get to the important part, I want animals to live without suffering. But cold cuts can't suffer.

And I'm not calling living animals cold cuts.

> I feel like the distinction between active killing and passive killing is overblown.

I used to feel the same way. A genuine question - have you ever done any active killing yourself?

I feel like it was a massive perspective changing experience for me to kill and butcher a ~1000lb wild creature.

Though there's a lot of difference in the wild vs. farmed part of the equation, not just in the details of killing.