I doubt it is healthier diet. Researches showing vegetarians are healthier have a problem that puts vegetarians to one group and omnivores to the second group putting people eating at fast foods altogether with people eating for example Paleo or mediterranean diet.

Greek diet is healthy, still they eat fish, seafood and meatballs.

Japanese cuisine is healthy, still they eat fish and seafood.

Korean cuisine is healthy, still they eat pork, fish.

Mediterrean diet is healthy, still they eat all types of meat.

Speaking of sustainability, there are regions where animal product is better (Mongolia, nordic regions). Besides that, sustainability is one of measures in the equation. People want sustainable diet, but not by all costs.

Right. By taking an approach which is:

1. Persuasion-based

2. Adapted to local cultures -- Such as the startup/industrial culture of California and much of the US.

We can significantly reduce the environmental impact without sparking large conflicts.

Talking about enforcing a change on the world is so large as to be counterproductive. Talking about influencing an area the size of California, Texas, or the UK has a chance to improve things.

The healthy aspect is in not overeating meat, which is well proven by modern science to be a significant public health risk in various developed countries.

It would be a very strange way to describe encouraging people to choose a more sustainable diet with writings like https://veganmuslims.com/dont-kill-an-animal-this-eid

It is a pretty normal way to describe trying to force dietary change on entire nations who are very attached to their cultures and traditions. https://www.palaisamani.com/eid-al-adha-el-rituals-in-morocc...

At this point I can't really believe you are arguing in good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

First, thanks for raising that. Good-faith discussion matters.

The strongest interpretation I was able to come up with is "Meat has enough environmental impact that it is worth public interventions to raise the prices of meat in enough communities around the world that billions of people notice the increased cost and feel forced to give up meat"

Is there a more charitable interpretation that I am missing?

Does anything in my words indicate that I think carlmr desires the deaths of people? (I don't think he wants that. I hope we all know we're talking about unintended consequences here).