the ecosystem would do perfectly fine. As long as you don't introduce new animals to the ecosystem, like cows or chickens into the amazon forest which would be a Invasive species

Realistically speaking, to arrive at such a situation you'd need a lot of time and resources to convince the whole world. Assuming you succeed, by the time everyone agrees they'd have prepared for it so society at least shouldn't see too much of a change.

@fhlamarche Hence the "suddenly" bit...

Hello, and welcome to WB SE. I'm afraid that your question falls out of scope of this site. Quite simply, you're asking us to help you figure out the very broad implications of a truly preposterous situation. Not only would any answer be primarily opinion based, but it would probably also span several pages. I recommend breaking this post down into several different questions which you might ask as you get answers on the basics of the issue. Read more about our rules at: what-if 1/2

2/2 Another useful link is Risk Factors.

When you say "No more pet dogs, cats or fish" does that mean people throw their pets out on the street to starve? And are people banned from killing parasites (tapeworms, fleas) and insects (crop pests, disease carrying mosquitoes)? I'm just checking you mean 'animal' in the zoological sense, not the colloquial sense of 'furry thing with a backbone'.

I'd also like to point out that the short term effect of your proposed situation is chaos, panic, the probable starvation (hundreds) of thousands of people, and economic chaos such as the world has never known before (there's a lot of jobs in growing food and processing it). To say that it's a silly question is the very polite way of putting it.

Good points everyone. I've narrowed the scope of my question.

A law does not declare something morally just/unjust or a taboo. So even if a law was passed immediately banning all ownership and killing of animals (which comes with its own huge set of problems) that wouldn't change peoples' perception of animal ownership.

If the emancipation of animals is intended to help the animals but actually results in all of the animals dying of starvation and predation and disease then maybe we would rethink the emancipation process so it didn't result in billions of dead animals?

I initially read this as Emaciated All Animals, which isn't far from the result.

@AndreiROM Not at all, feeding the world takes far less resources on a vegan diet than on a meat-based diet.

@gerrit - not the vegan/vegetarian propaganda, please.

This would be a massive blow to the plant-life emancipation movement.

I'm not sure that dogs/cats would count as slavery, cats quite often come and go as they please, whilst dogs have co-evolved with people. We have been shaped by them as much as we have shaped them. Dogs in a home setting are usually an equal member of the family. The only way to stop them coming back 'home' would be a mass cull...

@AndreiROM What are you talking about? It's ecology 101. Obviously, "crop -> animal -> human" takes more resources than "crop -> human", as the animal efficiency is pretty poor (5–20%, chicken or pork somewhat better, beef much worse) but always less than 100%. This is clearly acknowledged by UN FAO, among many others. You may wish to study some of the questions on Skeptics.SE: 1, 2, and others.

@MikeNichols In the present situation, billions of animals are already dying for human purposes, generation after generation; so in the worst case scenario, there would be one, final generation of mass animal death. But it need not be that way.

@AndreiROM If you for some reason dislike vegetarians or vegans (I wouldn't have a clue why, but some people do, perhaps it's some form of hidden shame or something), that does not necessitate denying unambiguous facts. You can simply acknowledge the facts, but admit that you are unwilling to change the way you live, just like most people do when faced with other environmental issues such as climate change.

@gerrit - please stop attributing all sorts of random things to me.

@gerrit - the usual cause of the dislike is the level of pretentiousness found in the argument you present ("I don't have a clue why but it's because they experience hidden shame"). The vegan arguement is usually predicated on shame as you resort to quite quickly here and this causes a backlash instead of understanding. Shame is founded in viewing yourself as superior to another, there is little wonder why it fails. Find a new method.

@Twelfth That might make sense, except that AndreiROMs choice of the word "propaganda" came before my parenthetical speculation about hidden shame. I am not a vegan, by the way.

@Gerrit yes, he asked for not the usual vegan/vegetarian propaganda (read as the usual shaming) to which you responded with exactly what he asked you not to bother with (in parenthetical form, the best method for speculative shaming). Facts are indeed facts, which you'll find no argument on. Speculating on shame as someone's motives is usually projecting your shame

@Twelfth I do believe that by "the propaganda" he referred to what I said before, not after.

@Twelfth It would be hard to know that by "the propaganda" he meant parenthetical shaming, in particular before I had bothered him with exactly that. In the context, it seems more reasonable he was talking about the facts (which I did also continue to bother him with, despite his request not to).

I totally agree that vegans can be annoying, but veganism is hard to avoid in a discussion when the question is as stated :-)

@gerrit - read the comment he wrote again about the mass chaos and short term effects that would be seen...nothing to do with resources to feed, but the fall out of a massively short term switch over. Your comment was barely relevant to this and was at best regurgitated 'vegan propaganda'. When he pointed this out, you continued with more of the same talking points and accused him of having shameful motivations.

@gerrit - correct your last line "but veganism is hard to avoid in a discussion when the question is as stated" should read "veganism is easy to bring up when the comment made had nothing to do with it".

@Twelfth The question is inherently about veganism. I did not bring it up, the question essentially did.

I did not accuse anybody of having shameful motivations, I made a parenthetical and conditional statement that was not about him, but about “some people”.

I don't believe at all that it would lead to famine.

@gerrit - the question did, but the comment and person you responded to did not. Once again, read the comment AndreiROM wrote about short term upheveal, then read your comment directed to him and tell me how it wasn't a regurgitated vegan mantra. As a single day switch, yes...famine is likely because of how dependent on meats we are now. As a long term planned event, there wouldn't be, but his comment was not towards that.

But we aren't dependent on meats. A significant fraction of the population is vegetarian already, and an even larger fraction does not eat much meat. Meanwhile an awful lot of food gets wasted. There would be a short-term mess, but even the qualitative malnutrition that a poorly planned vegan diet can lead to does not equate to famine.

I mean, many are dependent on meats in a qualitative way, and its removal would lead to short-term problems, but the death of hundreds of thousands in the USA due to hunger, no.

A regurgitated vegan mantra, possibly, but a true one. I don't think we're getting much further by debating what @AndreiROM meant as the user has (wisely) left the discussion.

There you go...thats a far different response than the unrelated 'vegan propaganda' you originally posted to his comment, isn't it? Though I disagree...a lot of resources are invested in our existing livestock, throwing it away and thinking our existing agriculture could instantly transition is folly.

Whether it's unrelated to the comment depends on how one interprets the comment.

I don't think existing agriculture could instantly and completely transition, but I think we have enough buffers that the short-term consequences would not be quite as bad as widespread famine.

Yes he left, tis the nature of these forums. Call this encouragement to vocalize yourself better next time...as it sits, he made a comment, you made an unrelated response and accused him of hating vegans for not wanting to respond to your unrelated comment.

@Twelfth My comment was not unrelated, depending on how one interprets his comment. I asked for a clarification, did not get one (from him). Most people do use “propaganda” intending a negative connotation, so my question whether he did dislike vegetarians or vegans (I did not say he did, certainly not that he hates them) seemed not outlandish.

@gerrit - sigh. You get the climate denial conversation I think...if you posted something to do with increasing sulphur emissions adding to co2 greenhouse effects and someone wrote in response "but the hockey stick graph is wrong!!! you hate working people and the economy (due to speculative parenthetical)", you would be as valid in saying "spare me the propaganda" too. I mean we can't have a climate question without the hockey stick graph right?

Regurgitating propaganda then inferring what he must hate is the denial process we know too well. You've since expressed your point better.

@twelfth - thank you for your efforts

@Twelfth I get what you're referring to, but I don't agree that the situation is quite the same. I recognise that my response may have been based on a misunderstanding on what @AndreiROM meant, although I don't really think that makes it vegan propaganda. I propose we let it rest at this point.

@gerrit - agreed. Please don't get me wrong, I completely agree that in a planned long term switch, significantly less resources can be used to feed humanity (mind you, I believe the most efficient tool to harvest grass for human consumption is called "a cow"). I just take exception to the method you went about this.

Ok. thanks for the conversation, bye

@AndreiROM - anytime, this is the last place you should be shame attacked.