[evgen]

You could pick any plant humans consume and it is inevitable that the vast bulk of it would be produced in large, efficient, monoculture operations. The delusion of small farms producing 'heirloom' vegetables in copious variety is a bourgeoisie fantasy of the western middle-class who has come no closer to a real farm than the local Whole Foods. The soy in your tempeh and tofu comes from those same farms, the same operations produce the feedstock of your kale chips and organic lentil puffs.

We have monoculture farming because it is efficient and people (not) surprisingly have decided that they have no interest in paying more for alternative production processes.

[ictebres]

We can’t conclude that this is the only way, especially with advanced automation or subsidies for ecological and sustainable agriculture. Furthermore animal farming must be the least efficient way to provide calories. So I don’t understand how you can talk down solid alternatives like tempeh or tofu.

(BTW in the link i posted above it says human products take up 6% of soybean production.)

[evgen]

You can imagine any fantasy scenarios you want if it makes you feel any better, but nothing in the past century of agricultural progress has had a significant impact on the economic factors motivating the industry.

Animal farming is not the most efficient way to provide calories, but humanity does not lack for calories. Livestock (excepting ruminants that graze on land that is unsuitable for farming) is a caloric aggregator, turning a large chunk of calories into a smaller volume that is easier to transport and more desired by the market. If you want that to change you need to meet the market's demands (c.f. the unicorn valuations of a few new fake meat companies...)

[conjectures]

"Animal farming is not the most efficient way to provide calories, but humanity does not lack for calories."

Actually, a lot of humans do go hungry. The inefficiency of using land for crops to feed to livestock means that the price of staples is higher than it otherwise would be.

While meeting market demands is a large part of what will change things I think you're missing a piece on how this will come about. If there were no vegans, the chance of vegan unicorns succeeding would be much smaller. If some people did not harp on about the inhumanity of industrial farming, others would be less motivated to try alternatives and the chance of vegan unicorns succeeding would be reduced.

[DuskStar]

> Actually, a lot of humans do go hungry. The inefficiency of using land for crops to feed to livestock means that the price of staples is higher than it otherwise would be.

I'll posit that even if you made grain free at the docks in the US, there would still be people in the world going hungry. (Fewer people, certainly) Transportation and distribution is just as large a problem as production at this point in history.