[patrickmclaren]

I think the best angle is the one given in the title: 90% less greenhouse emissions, 99% less water, and 93% less land.

This is an approach that provides compelling meal options in a manner that scales much better than our traditional livestock methods.

[gonehome]

I disagree actually - I think the animal suffering morality angle is the best argument for most people (as long as it's done in a way that isn't too adversarial).

Most people don't care about the environmental costs, we do lots of things that have environmental effects because we like them and think it's worth it.

Impossible and Beyond, while good, are still noticeably worse than beef to me. The animal suffering bit makes me accept that it's worth it. The environmental use isn't as compelling (imo).

[patrickmclaren]

Valid. Different messaging for different markets perhaps!

[learnstats2]

The messaging above is good because the animal suffering morality angle is implied without needing to be stated.

If you haven’t been convinced by decades of animal cruelty messaging (and most people haven’t), you’re unlikely to be convinced by it here.

It might form a meaningful part of a bigger decision-making process, but we already have that information.