[AU] After two hours of CBD (Melbourne) chaos, police remove vegan protesters

[AxeI]

Livestock production at 14.5% is insignificant, but transportation at 20.5% isn't? Seems like a rather finicky threshold you have here.
Eating meat at every meal is ridiculous and unnecessary. There's no health benefit to it whatsoever. Cutting meat intake by 80% can do more to your carbon footprint than switching from car to bus transportation, according to your own stats.
Are industry-farmed chicken fed food scraps? No? Then this is irrelevant to the vast majority of related carbon emissions and resource consumption.
"Proper technologies such as GMOs and fertilizers"? GMOs in their current form encourage monoculture, which is a significant risk to food sources stability, and industrial fertilizers are ecologically sub-optimal and make up a significant portion of farming-related carbon emissions.
There are much more efficient farming techniques you could use, that are financially costlier but environmentally much cheaper. Alternatively, we could encourage these guys to eat less meat in the first place, which would require them to only use a fraction of the arable land currently used for livestock.
It's not debatable at all. The majority of health experts agree that only a small portion of what the average westerner consumes in terms of meat is necessary for a person to be healthy, and that our current consumption leads to higher cancer and cardiovascular diseases rates.
What? Were slaves doing "pretty good" because they were more numerous than their masters? Would you consider yourself to be doing "pretty good" if you were being tortured constantly for the rest of your life but cloned? Nonsensical.
No need to if you don't go full vegan. Only a fraction of our current meat intake is necessary, the rest doesn't need replacing.
For most of our agricultural history, humans haven't been 1. as numerous as they currently are and 2. consuming nearly as much meat per capita as they are right now. In fact, the current habit of eating meat at every meal is less than a century old. Prior to this, most people ate meat on a weekly basis and not much more.

[🅱️🅰️LLS. ➿]

Just to add on to what axel and boobies is saying...

@TornadoAP

Re: deforestation
It's not fair to justify livestock agriculture in a western country by saying the environmental impact isn't as bad as it would be in developing countries. We all live on this planet together and we can set an example. It's also hypocritical for us to condemn countries for deforestation for livestock agriculture while at the same time supporting that in western countries.

Re: price of meat substitutes
Have you not seen the prices of pulses and tofu? Shit is cheap as fuck. It's only dairy alternatives which are a little pricey, but those are more delicacies rather than diet staples.

Re: farming animals
Your argument here is well... quite odd and I'm not sure how to respond. You can't apply a measure of success like that to farm animals. Just because there's a high number of then doesn't mean they're doing "well", it just means more of them exist, which is not good for the environment.

Also, as pointed out above, high levels of meat consumption is only a recent thing. A lot of cultures hardly, or didn't, eat meat on the levels they are today. It's only because the British and other western countries colonised and brought the idealogies of eating meat as a status symbol of wealth. For so many years, eating meat was just not considered to be necessary.