| If no one ate meat or used animal products, then the world would be very different.
All land used for raising animals for human consumption would shift to another purpose. A small portion of it would be for farming additional vegetables, since the per capita needs of vegetarians is smaller than omnivores. Slash and burning of rainforests would diminish, but logging and vegetable farming would still provide incentives for encroachment of such wildernesses.
Farm animals that are only valuable for human consumption by slaughter would become rare and humans would instead keep a smaller population of animals that promote good soil and vegetable maintenance. Water and energy consumption would be reduced at the farms, but also energy required to ship and refridgerate animals and meat would be reduced.
Farm animals that produce products without slaughter would be retained. There would still be wool, milk, eggs, etc. Vegetarian psychology would result in better living conditions for such stock, meaning higher costs to raise such animals as well as higher costs to care for animals that no longer produce those goods (instead of slaughtering them as soon as they are no longer productive). However, if this is cost-prohibitive, there would be incentive to replace such methods with artificial versions.
Predators, such as wolves and big cats would no longer compete with humans and would be allowed to be prolific. Humans would limit killing to only predators that endanger them more directly. However, the psychology of a vegetarian would result in a preference for fencing out predators and trapping + moving those that violate fences.
Products typically made from killing animals would shift to artificial manufacture. For example, gelatin would be produced by bacteria instead of animal bones. Higher demand for such items would create incentives to build large manufacturing facilities which in turn would enable economy-of-scale and reduce the price of artificial goods. Refining methods, such as for sugar and wine, would switch to using artificial alternatives instead of animal bones. Leather goods would not be available, and high demand for artificial leather would lead to more research into varieties of goods and applications than available from the current tech.
The absence of fishing would result in greatly increased life in the oceans and lakes at all levels. The fishing industry would be gone, but industries for farming of ocean plants would increase. Ships/boats would no longer be needed for fishing, but would still exist for transport, watersports, research, etc.
The shift in psychology that accompanies the less violent diet could result in other world changes but I am very uncertain how this would apply. Would people become less violent towards each other or would the basic principles of competition and survival keep us at the same level? Would the elimination of food/pet distinction cause an increase in the variety of pets we care for and domesticate? Would a less violent diet result in less violent appetites for entertainment (games/movies/etc)? |