[tankenmate]

Except that meat has been part of the human diet before we were even human, and evolution has adapted us to be omnivores. The human body can't produce a number of amino acids any more, a number of which are most easily sourced from the bodies of animals that can produce them (most of which are herbivores). For example Lysine and Methionine are easier to acquire from meat than vegetables; especially if you aren't burning lots of energy (exercise etc) or intake of lots of calories is a health issue.

You can live on a vegan diet, but it is easier to live on an omnivore diet. And since for most people easier is preferable, and when talking about the population of the world as a whole, you'll still find that a large percentage of the world's population will eat meat if it is easily available.

[ElKoji]

It is easier for moat people to live with fossil fuel so it is preferable right? I'm going to pass on the tired discussion of meat is what we're meant to eat because we've been going it forever. Bottom line is you CAN live without meat, it is perfectly healthy so it comes down to a choice. Now my original point was that having this half measures that require constant policing from both the consumer and industries is harder than cutting down something you don't need for good. Both routes require an equal amount of convincing of people, from eating less meat to using your car less or buying particular types of products over others are changes that most people are not ready or willing to accept and most likely won't come to full fruition until a couple generations down the line (regardless of the route) but you can start one yourself that requires no action from increasingly hostile politicians or corporation whose sole purpose of existence is in direct contradiction with the objective. As it is said, you vote with your money. Also if a tax was to be put on hugely polluting industries it'd be self-defeating to not tax meat and dairy.

[tankenmate]

My point is this, short of banning eating meat people will continue to do so; even if you made vegetables 1/100 of the cost of meat and fixed the calories / Lysine / Methionine issue (which would probably mean post processing the vegetables which increases costs). Banning means legislation, that means politics.

So seguing into climate change issues, this took politics too. It started with grassroots taking hold in the 60's counter culture, then the start of political pressure in the 70's. The first big political move was Reagan coming on board during the 80's; and also some lucky technology hook ups like solar powered calculators (never underestimate the power of logistical growth from a low end but widely used product).

The 90's brought us government sponsored research and industry backed development and product roll outs; this led to massive improvements in cost mainly though scale. The last 15 years have led to product refinements, financing options, and a greater society wide understanding of just how bad climate change could be.

And now we are at a situation of solar becoming cheaper than coal for producing electricity. 50 years!

So if you want to achieve the same with meat vs vegetables there is an enormous amount to achieve, above all you'll need to convince people at least as well as climate change issues, get government backing, make it as enjoyable as eating meat, and drive down the cost of Lysine and Methionine extraction.

In fact Canola (low erucic acid rapeseed) meal (what's left over after oil extraction) is currently used as livestock feed, this could be used for human consumption but would require further post-processing and possibly protein profile adjustment.

[CuriousSkeptic]

The problem with "you vote with your money" is how unequal money is distributed.

To accept it you must either be against democracy as a concept of equal rights to vote, or for an almost equal distribution of income. Neither of which is particular mainstream ideologies today.