I'd argue the most ethical course of action is to halt the breeding of additional animals for the purpose of slaughter. We have complete control of the situation here: not all wild animals die gruesome deaths, but a livestock animal's fate is decided far before they are even born. It feels a little less than 'humane'.
Call it whatever you prefer. The fact is there are millions of vegans and vegetarians in the world today who are very much alive.
A person who exclusively eats fruit is technically adhering to a vegan diet. A person who exclusively eats kraft singles is technically adhering to an omnivorous diet. There are wrong ways to do both.
The point I was trying to make with my earlier comment is that the people wasting away don't represent the average vegan/vegetarian. They are outliers who make for good headlines.
There are similarly many stories of omnivores who have died of malnourishment. Is this a valid case against meat eating?
A substantial percentage of people have access to food systems that allow them to thrive on plants alone, freeing them from a dependence on animal products. For these individuals, is 'ethically sourced meat' even possible? That is to say: if we know that killing a living being is unnecessary, is it ethical to do it anyway?
I think this response is just a natural demonstration of empathy. not a bad thing, if you ask me!
I agree that this is probably realistic but still incredibly difficult to call 'humane'.
Here's a definition from a quick web search:
Would you say that an individual who has the choice not to kill an animal and does it anyway is doing a 'humane' thing? Does it make difference where that killing happens?