While it is easy to say it is bad the convert rainforest for agriculture,which it is,there are a lot of people and very little farm land, and it is expensive to import food.
Plants require less land than animals. Shipping is quite cheap. Not to mention that lots of meat is shipped from developing countries to the West.
They require different land. Also it would be bad to add that much extra topsoil for produce considering we already use it faster than it is produced. It is efficient to have cattle.
Plant-based meat replacements are already cheaper than meat.
You seem like a very communist, or at least central authoritised for an AnCap. I eat beef because it is one of the greatest foods. It doesn't lack amino acids, and taste better.
How on Earth could you possibly interpret anything I've said as being communist? Please give some examples of what you mean.
You want to decide what people eat, and what to grow, instead of letting the market, and individuals decide.
No, I have never expressed such desires. I'm making *arguments* as to why eating some things is bad and eating other things is good. I don't support government bans on meat.
You cant eat the rainforest. Poor nations cant easily import all their food needs. Their population is booming. You are wrong to think k they only graze with cattle.
So eat plants, save the rainforest.
They burn the rainforest to grow plants already. They don't use it mostly for cattle. It is mostly used for sugar cane. Other crops as well, and obviously some grazing land.
