My problem with this article is that there aren't many arguments used in the first place. It's mostly a loosely connected set of facts, with not much of a unify

My problem with this article is that there aren't many arguments used in the first place. It's mostly a loosely connected set of facts, with not much of a unifying thesis. If the thesis is "meat consumption is growing", what's the relevance of chimpanzee's diet or health outcomes? Those two side-points make me think the thesis is actually "it is normal and okay that meat consumption is growing", but if that is the case it is woefully underargued. I think the issues with comparing the diet of a different species is obvious, and another commenter already mentionned the correlation between wealth and health. But crucially the article itself doesn't engage at all with issues of climate change or animal rights. I don't know who Smil is. I'm just responding to this article.