Similarly I don't think there is anything to offend with presumption, or at least anything that cares.
You have a dangerous lack of fundamental understanding of the topic to which you speak. I suggest you start your learning journey here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
No, its not.
Sometimes, OTOH, completely moronic ideas are offered without any support, and without it, contradiction is all they warrant.
You weren't debating before, just posting unsupported conclusions with no argument in support, and complaining about responses in kind.
On the other hand, almost every atheist I know believes in some form of material determinism. For them, individual Behavior is entirely driven by the physical makeup of an individual and their interacting environment. They deposited if you had a sufficiently accurate model of the universe you would be able to determine every action they would make.
Deforestation and farming practices (incl. pesticides/herbicides, pollution) are the main drivers of biodiversity loss.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...
Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss
Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi...
The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050
Two recent studies underscore the danger the meat production system poses for biodiversity.
Sure! Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced?
> The key is reducing meat consumption
No! If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population.
Sure.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable
A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449
How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w
Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
> If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population
The change is absolutely needed.
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability...
One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American.
We don't have those extra Earths, and won't anytime soon.
> the key is not to try and force change on the general population
Sure, solve the biggest problem we've ever faced, but we don't want to change a thing.