without examining the source data, there is no way to verify this. the link at the bottom 404s and no other references are given

calling me names, speculating on the reasons for others votes, and mischaracterizing my position all indicate you're not engaging in good faith. have a nice day.

anyone can read the thread and see it's exactly what i've been saying. calling me names and using coded kys rhetoric won't change what i've written, or its truth.

here is literally zero way you could know what it would’ve been if not for vegans.

which is what i've been saying.

meat production hasn't decreased. therefore nothing can be said to have decreased it.

I'm not antivegan

no, it shows that being vegan hasn't decreased meat production

that map uses flawed methodology

it counts almost all crop land as feed land

most crops are grown for human food oil fiber or fuel

the parts fed to animals are just secondary co products

feeding residual meal and pulp to livestock avoids waste

this should help you understand the concept

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/counterfactuals/

Less people would be dead if Kamala had won

counterfactuals cannot be proven

if you had to look up counterfactuals, you probably aren't qualified to discuss this right now.

I'm the authority on my own feelings.

I don't hate vegans and I'm not annoyed at them existing. you are reading something I haven't written

counterfactuals can't be proven. that's the only fact that matters when the actually baseless claim that it would be worse without a few people buying beans is raised.

If people were eating more meat, more meat would be produced.

that is already happening

vegans aren't wrong to be vegan. but it would be wrong to say being vegan causes systemic change. which I thought was the point I made to begin with, and to an extent, the point of this post

meat production continues to rise, and there is no reason to believe it could rise any faster. systemic change needs to happen.

calling me names won't change the facts

In this paper, we link a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) to estimates from a review of 570 life-cycle assessments3 (LCAs)

lca studies are disparately methodized, and cannot be combined. this is junk science

this is a counterfactual and cannot be proven