Nope. It's halve of the truth in my eyes and, again, written by someone with its own agenda and one wanting to lure you in to vegan. KEEP CAUTION!! ;) The char

Nope. It's halve of the truth in my eyes and, again, written by someone with its own agenda and one wanting to lure you in to vegan. KEEP CAUTION!! ;) The charts showing the Earth's population and "hunger on the rise again", anf the other's aren't in question. Except of one. THE QUESTION is why the author assume that by removing beef and muttons, their land usage will minimize - of course it will! But it won't be automatically converted to crop land which can be used to plant crops. Nope... We don't have a race concurrency to the supply of food. The beef and mutton get 1. The leavings of crop production, while the human can't digest f.e. halms 2. The grasses, which can be planted where no crop is growing, in harsher environments e.g,, can be fed to animals, but not to humans. So, the argument is very wrong in that term. The conclusion "we have to be vegi/Vega" is based on unlogical thinking. WE have to find ways to feed 10 bn. And for sure, we have to reduce beef and mutton, just alone given a possible food concurrency. We have a resource that isn't in direct concurrency. It's living in an environment where we can't survive. Fish. So, the future is with little lacto/oevre, more fish and mostly plant based, but not pure vegan. We are limited in area that could be used plants and crops. Also, our agriculture isn't magic. At some point the soil is used up. This must be addressed more seriously. The future will also be high stacked ;)