Just cause it's not all of us going out and killing these animals doesn't remove our species from its position on the food chain. We are the most exaggerated and efficient carnivores on the planet. We as a species have found a way, as members of the carnivores on the food chain, to get mass amounts of meat for the whole of the species. To the point where yes, we have more than we need. The debate then is, should we only kill enough to survive? What would you say then? No we don't need to kill at all, we can all just be vegan. But what about the other members of this circle of life? Why are they not held to the same standard? Why must we stop being predatory carnivores, and not try to curb the dietary habits of other carnivores on the food chain? I understand the idea that some of the animals we eat suffer cruelty as part of the process but like I said, some of natures predators will start to eat their prey living while their herd/family watch in horror or at least see as they try to get away. Is this not animal on animal cruelty? Perhaps it's not as bad as chaining animals up in a warehouse for calculated slaughter but like I said, we as a species are an exaggerated version of what has always been. The difference is we're more efficient at what other species have been doing since before we got here.
We do not derive our energy and nutrient requirements from a diet consisting mainly or exclusively of animal tissue so we are not carnivores. We are omnivores and very inefficient at that considering how much of
different resources, time and energy we put into producing the unnecessary large amount of animal products for so many that have no actual need for them.
While biologists tell that were
not at the top, which makes sense considering a large majority of us we aren't killing all these apex predators, with a somewhat larger minority actually killing any of the animals they eat I can still understand people regarding ourselves to be at the top. At the same time I don't think the moral imperative of "might makes right" is ethically defensive or a proper reason to justify causing needless suffering and death of 150 billion beings each year.
So sure, we have the ability to kill any other animals with the technology that we have that we have developed with the help of our brain. But at the same time we have also used our intelligence to come up with ways for us living in civilization to survive perfectly fine without these animal products that are actually only making our survival more or less difficult especially in the future with how much of a driver animal agriculture is of most environmental ills and climate change.
Wild animals in completely different situations than us are hunting, killing and causing some sort suffering to other animals, doing the only thing they know how to keep themselves and their genes to survive while lacking the mental capacity to conceptualize ethics unlike us, which is why they also indeed do many other things we find unethical like stealing, raping, eating children for example. The large majority of vegans accept and understand these behaviors because of these factors, just like they do with people with unusual medical or living conditions for example who literally have no other options than to eat animal products in order to survive and can't pick another dietary habit like so many of us.
Oh, and are animals of equal worth to human beings imo? It's a very complicated question and even just a concept in a way, but in the end I'd say my answer would be "not completely" from my perspective as a human. Though imo the more relevant questions we should be asking ourselves should be if we should view all these animals with enough worth that their lives are more valuable than a portion of our convenience. Or with the emotional and intellectual capabilities that are significant on a certain level should these animals deserve enough of our respect that we shouldn't subject them to a life of cruelty and ultimately death to have a meal when there are many satisfying plant-based alternatives.
But unfortunately not actually that relevant questions in this society.