The conversation is about the necessity of killing what you eat. Those slugs have nothing to do with either argument nor were they a necessary casualty.
I think in practice pest control does require killing the pest, and in that example was a necessary part of growing broccoli to harvesy
Not sure how killing things and then not eating them is morally superior. If you aren't eating meat you are probably getting most of your calories from grains and legumes. The people that grow and store those for you are killing a lot of animals to get them to your grocery store.
This response feels quite emotional, so I’ll start by saying there was no judgement in my comment. At no point have I made a comment on the morality of the matter. Furthermore, not only do grocery stores not even enter into the conversation, you are assuming to know what the people who grow and sell the food at my local markets eat. I assure you, you do not.
I think you’ll benefit from this video. Don’t let yourself be consumed by emotions of an imaginary argument. The entirety of your point is a response to something you imagined I said and not my words or intentions.
I think you misunderstood me, perhaps I didn't express myself well. You said the slugs were not a necessary casualty. Growing the acres and acres of grain and pulses necessary for a vegan diet necessitates the killing of way more animals (insects and rodents, etc) than the few cows, chickens, or pigs necessary to feed a carnivore. Every kind of agriculture requires killing. There is no other way to do it at scale.
The real problem is the sheer number of humans we have to feed. Hopefully another couple centuries of low birth rates will help.