This has already been answered elsewhere in this discussion.

> You're attempting a bait and switch: 1) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output if everyone switched now. 2) Claim veganism is bad because it would reduce output at the margin of an optimal policy.

I'm not doing a bait and switch. Here is what I wrote:

1.) in a sibling thread before this one:

> So maybe your idea would work in a more temperate climate. And maybe it would provide extra food for people further north, but it would mean a lot of land that cannot be used for anything but pastures would go out of use.

2.) On top of this thread:

> I'm not saying this is not possible. But I am saying - as someone who has grown up on a farm and studied farming - that it might be somewhat more complicated.

I write that in reply to you writing a comment in support of this comment:

> Yeah, and the vast amounts of land used to grow those things can be redirected to other things that humans can eat.

> I have no idea why otherwise smart people get such a brain block on the topic of meat-eating. These "gotcha" points fall apart if you take 10 seconds to think about it.

Back to your claim of bait and switch :

It is more like as I proceed down the thread I get more and more specific to make my point easier to understand.

I still stand by my original claim.

My point is that while vast areas can be repurposed other vast areas cannot.

I point out early on that it might be possible anyway.

I also claim that like a lot of other topics it isn't something you can understand in ten seconds like the comment you supported seems to claim.