The short answer is we should, but I think the realistic answer is its a lot to give up. And, where it's moral in one spot it's rather difficult or outright hypocritical in a other.

Many argue about animals and meat.

Why? It's visual, in our faces, etc. But, the argument is not a logic we can pick and choose from regarding preservation of life.

For instance, the logic does not stop at cute, furry animals. Insects must be to the same standard.

Thus, all toxins and pesticides must go. Not only will this destroy crops which are vulnerable due to our meddling, it'll also destroy our properties and our buildings with infestations. Disease will increase as well.

If we just care about the barn yard animals then there is no logic outside caring about 10 or so animals versus a logic that doesn't harm anything. I'm exaggerating the argument but it's often limited to animals, indirectly.

Keep in mind as a side note, vegetation, instances of it, knows you're hurting it on some primal level, so to speak. It can react so call it whatever it's reacting. Some release toxins to ward off predation when attacked, some let off scents, etc. So at that instinct, it's fighting to survive.

This morality also means ridding of pets, no dogs, cats, horses, etc. All their functions are gone. Bees are gone from our meddling. We are natural or not.

Interestingly enough, if society collapsed, would veganism be possible without processing nutrients not found in vegetation? Who would make the almond milk if no factories existed and can we all existing eating seeds?

Secondly, if left starving, would an average vegan starve or kill an animal to survive? If they'd kill an animal, would they kill a human to eat for the same reason? If not why is there a difference in life if all life should be equal, presuming a vegans stance is its wrong to kill animals for seemingly the same reason it would be for a human. Meat is murder?

I think it's a nice notion but I don't think morality is a strong suit in consuming animals. Life is suffering, most humans work a shit job, have stress most their lives, some get war, some get disease, etc. A horse doing labor doesn't bother me, it gets longevity. A cow wouldn't do anything different on the other side of the fence and they don't worry about predators thanks to dogs and the farmers gun. We know cats don't live as nearly as long as on their own versus human care and many cats seem happy with their humans.

Long story short, I think such a model of life can be achieved as technology gets better. Diet should and ways of doing things should always get better.

Thus, I don't think it's a case of morality versus more a need of society to function. I am not referring to factory farming or over consumption, but, even a moderate life style.

At the very least, humans will need to defend itself against wild life. It's near impossible to do anything without interfering with some animal or insects existence. Try building a home without displacing anything.

So, while the argument is that it could be more moral, perhaps it's a case of its a natural outcome for humans to better their behavior. We didn't force horses to stop pulling wagons, cars and combines did that. In star trek they use replicators.

Is it moral? At most you're not adding to its suffering that it's already experiencing. At worst you're causing it to suffer somehow else.