Swing and a miss. Like its a noble goal but you probably should shoot for a different reason. Its no secret that a portion of migrants workers in the agricultural sector are also children. While the exact number is unknown, an estimated 30,000 to 79,325 children between the ages of ten and seventeen are exploited for their work on U.S. farms each year.
Are they exploited on farms that grow feed for chickens and cattle? Because if so, I could imagine someone making an argument for “lessening” child labor with their economic choices by simply eating the grains directly.
Except you are just offloading the child labor for native born citizens but still not caring about the migrant workers since they will still just be working those grain farms.
first, how do you quantify suffering? it’s a subjective experience.
second, if we assume that a certain amount of suffering results from every animal killed, reducing the amount of animals you eat doesn’t actually reduce the number of animals killed.
assuming your method of quantifying suffering is reasonable (i’m dubious), if no fewer animals are killed, then there is still no reduction in suffering
Is this an argument we should be having? Sure all right. Is this where we should be having it? Probably not. It's a huge non sequitur to bring that up within the context of child labor, and at best, makes you look "out of touch"