The plants fed to animals are not necessarily killed - often the opposite: they are fostered and nurtured and protected.
I agree, there are many examples where animals practice cultivation and rotation, never stripping the food source to the point it will die. This may be a natural result of needing a varied diet which demands they eat a little of this and a little of that, unwittingly preserving the source itself so that it can restore itself. Except for goats maybe, they eat everything until its all gone. Some lawn cutting businesses employ goats which will graze the grass to the ground. However, even this drastic method also provides fertilizer for the lawn from the goats' droppings and when there is sufficient water available, grass is an extremely hardy and fast growing plant with deep roots. Termites cultivate their own gardens of fungi to feed the entire mound. They are completely self sufficient.
Isn't the idea that this god guy wanted to create a system - i.e and ecology? Not a zoo? If he wanted to preserve every individual critter, why would he give them lifespans? (Not that I want to lend credence to the mythos as having an objective basis in reality, but I do see it as having at least some internal consistency.)
Not all the grains that feed livestock. They get killed and could feed, for example, at least 10s of millions of people.
I wasn't arguing for vegetarianism. I was arguing against the idea that vegetarians AS OPPOSED TO MEAT EATERS are causing more plant deaths. The opposite is true. Keep eating meat, I do. I could give a shit if you do.
You could add in, 'me say things that don't need to make much sense.' I eat meat. What a strange sense you have of a breakfast prayer.
