So you say that it's more extreme to eat beans than to raise animals by feeding them beans to then slaughter them to eat them?

I've read somewhere recently that you need 16kcal of feed to produce 1kcal worth of chicken. That's a 16 times loss in efficiency that requires a lot of plants to feed to the chicken that could have been consumed by humans.

To the first part, yeah. It’s more extreme in the sense that it requires bigger changes from more people.

Why not go to zero?

It's a bit like saying: "Reducing the amount of fossil fuel is a good idea, but why go to zero?"

There is no fundamental need to get energy from fossil fuels specifically, we just have to work at getting replacements for all scenarios.

Nutrition is an entirely different thing. First of all, it is a very fundamental cultural and personal thing. Meat and dairy products have an important nutritional value, which isn't easily replaced, especially not by local foods in many regions. And except for the fossil fuels used in farming (both for meat and plant production), it is carbon-neutral. The problem with it are rather matters of scale and over consumption, so yes, the idea to just reduce meat consumption sounds like a very good idea overall.

Yeah I don’t think zero is a good goal. Fossil fuels don’t harm the environment at every scale.