I'm not sure a strictly maths based ethics is the way to go, that's where you get into sociopath greater-good style considerations like "If i take out the managing team of , eventually they’ll recover but i'll have saved approximately X animals in the meantime"

Don't get me wrong, i'm not against that kind of thinking, i'm just not sure it's a viable long-term lifestyle.

In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.

In order to produce n steaks 1 cow has to die.

Arguably it's probably slightly more than 1, given the morbidity rate of cows before they reach the "food production" stage.

In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.

In order to produce 1 phone a non-zero number of people will (likely) be maimed/outright killed while working under slave labour conditions.

If you include the more realistic cost/benefits i suggested above does that change the calculations involved for you ?

The following is an aside to the main conversation:

It was been pointed out that some electronics are as good as necessities for most people, while i think there's a subjective aspect to "necessity" I'll concede some electronics use it's not the same as meat consumption. Though i would further argue that under today's food production and distribution systems, meat consumption could be argued to be a necessity in some situations.

But that's almost certainly an entirely different conversation.