What do you feel about this argument?

[Obolinda]

But then millions of people will be without jobs as less farmland is needed, there will be widespread poverty in the developed world not just the undeveloped world isn't human suffering greater than animal suffering? , also counties that can't grow plants but can rear animals (as the ground is too infertile) e.g some northern African countries will just have massive famines of they were to just survive of plants, which they already do. So plants would have to be shipped in or flown on, contributing to climate change. Economies will be damaged, lots of other jobs will be affected, animals aren't just for eating they are an important resource. Also, would you still allow culling of animals like deer and wild boar? As they have to be culled to protect farmland in the UK.

How would you respond

[brimstoneSalad]

But then millions of people will be without jobs as less farmland is needed,

Less farmland is needed, but it's not true that people would be out of work.
First, land use doesn't correlate to jobs. Picking vegetables actually provides more jobs per acre.

Second, it's a myth that the animal agriculture industry is providing a bunch of good jobs: the vast majority is produced by factory farms, and there are a small number of workers who rotate in and out, taking PTSD with them on their ways out the door. It's one of the worst jobs on the planet, and we'll be better off without it.

Finally, a new industry means new jobs. Plant foods are processed to make palatable meals. Do they think people aren't employed making tofu?

there will be widespread poverty in the developed world not just the undeveloped world isn't human suffering greater than animal suffering?

There would be no such thing. Animal ag represents a very small part of the economy, and even fewer steady jobs. The vast majority of smaller farms that raise animals can easily pivot to more vegetable production.

To the contrary, going vegan will help prevent a catastrophic economic blow of climate change.

also counties that can't grow plants but can rear animals (as the ground is too infertile) e.g some northern African countries will just have massive famines of they were to just survive of plants, which they already do.

That's a myth. If you can rear animals, you can grow crops. Livestock take large amounts of supplementary water, and so does grass. People just need more education in farming and better supplies. And yes, likely some imports.

So plants would have to be shipped in or flown on, contributing to climate change.

True, but then false. This is the localvore myth. Transportation is actually a very tiny part of the embodied energy in food. A steak still requires much more energy (and greenhouse gas output) than tofu shipped around the world.

People in these areas would not be importing all of their food, just some things that don't grow as well in those regions. The majority of their staples would still be grown by them.

Economies will be damaged, lots of other jobs will be affected, animals aren't just for eating they are an important resource.

Most vegans aren't against service animals, like seeing eye dogs.
Most vegans aren't even against pets, period.

In terms of work animals, there are some areas where oxen are used for plowing. Vegans don't expect people to give up their ability to grow food without replacements. See the practicable and possible part of the definition of vegan We need to work on spreading no-till farming methods (it's better not to till), and increasing access to efficient mechanized harvesting in developing countries.

Also, would you still allow culling of animals like deer and wild boar? As they have to be culled to protect farmland in the UK.

They don't have to be killed. That's a myth. Birth control has worked well on overpopulation of wild animals.

How would you respond

^ Like that.