While you're completely right on the "calories available per energy expended" point, nutrition has come around to thinking that meat is a source of "fatsoes" (what with being mostly protein and fat), and

> - Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of meat which we consume today

Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial.

Furthermore, our staple cereal carbs literally didn't exist in the "natural" diet timespan, the sources of carbs would have been fruits (where and when available at all) and fibrous and starchy tubers, so your appeal to nature isn't exactly helpful to feeding the world while solving climate change.

Finally:

1. not all meats are equal, poultry has an FCR of about 2 (that is 2 units of feed will produce 1 unit of chicken or eggs), rabbits and pigs are around 3.5~4 and beef cattle is ~6.

2. of note, dairy is worse than beef on an FCR basis.

3. OTOH not all feed are equal and I don't know that FCR takes this in account (cattle being fed raw roughage while poultry or fish is fed concentrate)

4. feed can be a side-product of other food production (e.g. straws) or it might be produced on lands otherwise inclement to human food production, or as part of a rotation scheme

> Humans "naturally" ate whatever was available and edible, in northernly latitude they certainly ate ridiculous amounts of meat what with most of the food available outside of high summer being hunted or fished. Humans are not a vegetarian species, and their survival on a strictly vegetarian diet is non-trivial.

For the most part of our existense we didn't eat much or any meat. Only when humans invented the farming of livestock we started our journey to the (over) consumption of meat.

Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do.

> Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat and other physical properties are also a testament to the fact that we were not designed to hunt and eat meat as much as we think we do.

I don't know where you got that idea. Our teeth are pretty standard omnivorous and we have archaeological evidence of hunting long predating modern humans (we're talking >2MYA).

> Our teeth, nails and inability to easily digest raw meat

As opposed to our ease of digesting raw beans, grains and tubers, which at best we literally can't do and at worse are actively toxic unless extensively prepared?

> inability to easily digest raw meat

Humans digest raw meat just fine. Cooking does help a bit but not that much as to suggest it's an evidence for us being herbivorous. It's more about taste and safety nowadays.

I'd suggest you try raw meat vs raw beans/grains and tell me which ones you have more problems digesting.

These are ideological driven oversimplifications, not facts.

However it's not that hard to play this game

The Plant-based milks,grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals over-production has a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions

Humans don't need to eat large quantities of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads, Industrial Seed Oils, flours, cereals for any health of fitness reasons

Humans naturally didn't eat the amounts of Plant-based milks, grains, pasta, breads,Industrial Seed Oils, flours, which we consume today

- Eating large amounts of meat increase the chances of certain cancers (Based on epidemiological/observational/rat studies)

How is that ideological ? You sound like every meat lover who just can't stop eating his steak

There's not really any meaningful definition of "natural" that is useful in the context you are using it.

You are arguing that people eating what they like isn't natural!

Please provide citations for your claims.

I think you can use google yourself, but I honestly hope that we can conduct a conversation with a certain expectation of common knowledge. I hope I don't have to provide links that gravity exists when I tell you that when I throw a rock it will hit the floor.

None of these claims are new or controversial. They have been researched and proven to death by now.

Here's what you've done in this thread so far:

"These are facts: ..."

(baseless claims with no justification)

"I hope I don't need to explain why they're are true"

(no justification or actual argument)

"None of these are controversial"

(apart from people disputing them here)

"They have been proven"

(without presenting proof)

I'll quit meat completely (already eating less than 1 lbs/week, so it's easy) if someone else starts buying new devices only when the battery starts failing? Because that infuriates me to no end, "lololol I still have my S7, but the S8 looks better, and my laptop is out of storage space".

And then you will move the goalposts and nothing will change. Many people do that...

Anyway, the point is to not strike at consumers, but the producers. Taxation and environmental targets are the way to do it.

What goalposts though? I can safely say "I'm doing my part". But overall it's nothing, not even a blip. There's more spoiled meat and broken phones in the local dump than I'd ever use.

This only works if everyone does it, production will fall of there's no demand. Although that would bring economic problems in the current system...

Taxation may work, but the best way is to change the culture. The alcohol and tobacco tax has skyrocketed, yet people still drink and smoke a lot. I think the mindset of "not smoking is better, I'd rather never start" worked better than the taxes.