the only place where eating meat is even debatable is in the wealthier countries where people can afford to be choosy over what they have.
In that sense, morality is based on pocket book and not human survival.
I think I get where you are coming from.
There is this idea that making the choice to not eat meat is a luxury that we have in the food abundant wealthy world. There is some truth to this, but it's a bit misleading. The real cost of meat is extraordinary in both money and natural resources. The luxury is eating meat. For that matter, you'll see less meat eating in poorer parts of the world. Certainly the ethical issue of meat eating is different for Hindus (although religious reasons kind of complicate the ethics, IMHO). I think the "choosy" argument forgets that with our privilege, we've allowed for huge amounts of resources to go to the eating of meat, where the same resources could create up to 8 times as much plant based food. This itself provides an ethical dilemma. The truth you speak to, is that we don't eat in the West to survive. We don't have people starving, and few of us truly understand hunger, less starvation. From this position, it's easy to view the question as trivial. However, since I can acknowledge I have the ability to choose, and that my choices can have a greater effect on the world, creating a personal ethical standard on my dietary practices is perfectly reasonable. At the same time, I can accept that others without this choice can have a different ethical boundary.
We don't eat meat because we must. We eat it because we want to. If a starving person was before me with a cow, I'd kill the cow myself to feed them. We should not confuse our circumstances such that we lie to ourselves that it is an unfortunate violent necessity. It isn't. If such a necessity exist for others, I don't object, and why would I?