Alaknar

Try the "Dark Reader" plugin (works for all chromium-based browsers and Firefox - at least). It lets you customise the "darkness" of the dark mode to your hearts content. I have most of my sites set up so that they're more "very dark grey" rather than black.

Doesn't always work nicely, some sites get their images mangled, or the text will get a weird shade that makes it illegible, but overall, it's great. And you probably can fix most of these issues by tweaking the filter settings.

I did; Most farm land is used for animal feed., so plant based food uses way less farm land and thus causes way less degradation and emissions.

Most is not all... Also: if we practically eliminate the meat industry, the "vegan farms" need to grow as well. It's not like all that land that's currently being degraded for animal feed will be freed to recover. No, it will still be producing environmentally catastrophic food - but for humans directly.

Mentally disturbed humans who act violently are still humans and part of our pack, I think we should make sure they don't hurt others

That's not an answer to my question, though. You posited that only the "capability of understanding that you're causing harm" determines whether killing is OK or not.

Wild animals do not have that capacity, therefore them killing other animals is OK.

Which means that humans with damaged cognitive abilities (like psychopaths, sadists, etc) killing other humans without the realisation of the hurt they're causing... Is also OK.

You seriously think that humans would sign up to get needlessly killed for profit/taste..?

Yes.

How do you ethically kill someone who doesn't need or want to die?

So here we come back to my previous question: how to you prevent wild animals from killing other wild animals who most definitely don't want (or, in many cases, need) to die?

And also my other previous question: how do you ethically deforest swathes of land, destroying topsoil and biodiversity, ALSO killing lots of animals in the process - directly or, mostly, indirectly, through the removal of their natural hunting/feeding grounds and condemning them to starvation?

EDIT: changed the link to an even more appropriate one. The previous link, for those interested, HERE.

Cats are obligate carnivores in nature because of taurine

From the wiki:

Specifically, cats have high protein requirements and their metabolisms appear unable to synthesize essential nutrients such as retinol, arginine, taurine, and arachidonic acid;

There's another problem of the cat digestive system just being too short to handle most plant matter.

so if you want less soy farming you should drop the animal products

I want to. Well, not "drop" but rather "limit". That's exactly why I mentioned "excess" being the problem here.

You didn't answer the question, though - how do you feel about the morality of topsoil degradation, greenhouse emissions and biodiversity reduction caused by most vegan food alternatives?

No it's the act that's wrong, needlessly killing other beings when we don't have to is clearly evil.

Please reply to this question:

If you consider the "capability to consider the consequences of one's actions" as the ultimate method of determining if killing is OK or not... then you should be equally fine with mentally disturbed humans killing other humans. Are you?

You wouldn't accept these condition for "human farms".

Which conditions? The majority of farms - sure, the conditions are horrible and it's exactly what I'm saying we should eliminate. But there are modern farms that have conditions most of the human population would gladly sign up for. Damn, I'd be one of them!

Why be cruel when we can easily avoid it?

Precisely my point. That being said, there are a myriad of methods of killing an animal without being cruel.

Cats and dogs can thrive on a plant based diet

That's flat out wrong. Cats are obligate carnivores, so feed them vegan diet only if you really want them to suffer horribly.

Wild animals don't have the capability to consider the consequences of their actions

If you consider the "capability to consider the consequences of one's actions" as the ultimate method of determining if killing is OK or not... then you should be equally fine with mentally disturbed humans killing other humans. Are you?

Do you normally base your morals on what wild animals do?

Let's not involve "morality" into this, since morality is a very subjective thing. The morality of abortions being an excellent example. It also puts the whole discussion about, say, euthanasia in a very peculiar spot.

Also: what about the morality of extreme deforestation to make room for farms growing vegan food? What about the morality of the increase in carbon emissions, the destruction of topsoil and reduction of biodiversity that soy farming brings?

The problem with meat industry is that, well, it became an industry. Excess is the evil here, not the ACT of consuming an animal. There are plenty of ways of giving animals excellent, pleasant lives and then ending these lives in a way that produces no fear, no trauma in them. Or even awareness of the fact.

We are all just life. Life starts, requires fuel, and then ends. Sometimes life kills other life in order to get the fuel, and that's fine. What we, as the most technologically advanced form of life on this planet can do, is do all in our power to ensure that while all the forms of fuel remain available to us, we do so without causing excess harm. Which also means things like growing meat in labs instead of obtaining it through the killing of animals, of course. I'm very much a fan of the concept of lab-grown meat, but that's just something that's not obtainable on a large enough scale in the nearest future.

Just like humans, other animals also have the right to not be needlessly killed.

So when do you start a campaign to turn cats and dogs vegan? What's the plan for lions and bears living in the wild?