> In itself that's a sign that we live in a world where our consumption of resources has to be restricted. This is a lowering of quality of life. Yes. The poin

> In itself that's a sign that we live in a world where our consumption of resources has to be restricted. This is a lowering of quality of life. Yes. The point is that the lost quality of life some experience by going vegetarian (full disclosure: I have not managed to, I've only cut my meat consumption in half) is far smaller than the one everyone will experience if this climate change runs amok. > So, we can only eat plant-based food. We cannot travel. We need to live in small flats in megacities. We can only use mass transit, etc. This ends up being 1984 meets The Matrix as I commented somewhere else. I didn't say this. Yes, travel needs to be shifted to renewables. And yes, cities are probably better than rural living. > Shouldn't the objective be that every human enjoy life while preserving the environment? Have a large garden, have pets (someone commented that they should be banned), travel to see the world? I think it's better to have fewer of us with better quality of life and able to enjoy a thriving environment. Great secondary objective! We need to find a way to do it that doesn't make us miss our primary one: prevent catastrophic climate change. I think we can do it.