> Or is it that the problem would be greatly reduced if everyone stopped eating meat. I expect this is true but it is not going to happen. This is a classic Tr

> Or is it that the problem would be greatly reduced if everyone stopped eating meat. I expect this is true but it is not going to happen. This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons. No single individual is incentivized to sacrifice for the good of the group as a whole. But it's not correct to say that "it's not going to happen" - there are many counter-examples. The most notable is the ozone layer depletion problem that has been largely mitigated over the last 3 decades through concerted action among govts, NGOs and with public education. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion: "The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date. ... The ozone hole was seen as a "hot issue" and imminent risk as lay people feared severe personal consequences such as skin cancer, cataracts, damage to plants, and reduction of plankton populations. ... Americans voluntarily switched away from aerosol sprays, resulting in a 50 percent sales loss even before legislation was enforced." So yes, at some future point, if govts/NGOs do their part and the average human comes to believe they face imminent personal danger (which we already do but it's hidden), meat production may well become heavily regulated and large numbers of people may switch to vegetarianism.