[DominikPeters]

Going vegan isn't supposed to be as good for humanity as possible -- it is supposed to be as good as possible for all conscious beings, including non-human animals. It would be rather surprising if the best diet for humans would also be the best diet for humans and animals taken together. On the other hand, it is encouraging that these two goals do not conflict for the most part: The paper only finds pretty minimal land-use efficiency gains if one mixes some animal products into a plant-based diet.

[patcheudor]

Exactly. The idea of the vegan diet being "good for humanity" isn't something that crosses the minds of many "die-hard vegans", quite the opposite in fact. Many have a profound dislike of humanity and choose a vegan diet out of concern for the animals harmed in food production. Morrissey would be an excellent example of someone who really takes that philosophy to heart. For the record, I'm a vegetarian, my daughter is vegan, and I'm a Morrissey fan.

[Pxtl]

"profound dislike for humanity" seems unfair.

[Pxtl]

Besides that, the article is talking about 100% global adherence to the vegan diet. As long as there are some vegetarians, the non-human-only farmland will have use.

And even with 100% veganism, assuming no miracle crop is invented to use that additional land, it was still a pretty slim gap between the vegan diet and the "optimal" ones.

Really, the article kind of buries the lede when it puts veganism under the microscope considering that its numbers show how moving away from the modern meat-heavy diet would like triple the food supply.