I said it was ridiculous from a practical standpoint. My hyperbolic language probably muddied my point. I'm only saying I see much more value-leverage in puttin

I said it was ridiculous from a practical standpoint. My hyperbolic language probably muddied my point. I'm only saying I see much more value-leverage in putting energy into reducing meat consumption than eliminating it. If nothing else, it's an obvious first step. There are a lot of problems with pushing an agenda as extreme as veganism. It defines itself prohibitively, instead of positively. It says "I don't eat meat" instead of "I eat vegetables". That's off-putting and turns the conversation quickly into one about absolutes and morality. I think that's a super high-cost, high-friction path to changing behavior from a practical standpoint. Further, I worry about the constant association with veganism and health. It's far from my field of expertise but it seems to quickly lead to pretty boolean discussions about whether meat is good or bad for you, and those discussions don't resolve very clearly. I'd rather we talk more often about the fact that the modern meat and dairy industries are completely and irrefutably destructive to the planet. [Edit: See Zike's excellent response to your comment for a perfect example of what I'm talking about above.]