[best_one_there]

I can't speak for others, but at least for me, an omnivorous diet is not suboptimal.

It may have higher emissions, but that's not the sole metric I use when deciding what to do. I think that would result in clinical depression, because I could always ratchet down my emissions by, for example, buying fewer board games, until I just don't really do anything.

Can't even go camping with a gas stove!

In everyday life I don't generally discuss my diet beyond small talk.

So you'd probably lump me in with that 95% of irrationals, because in person, I'd just try to change the subject.

[colordrops]

You are correct, you are entrenched in your beliefs about animal products, and you even admit to being unwilling to discuss them, wanting to change the subject, and (likely unintentionally) misrepresenting facts by comparing animal agriculture to camping and board games.

The fact is though that board games and gas stoves are nothing in comparison to animal husbandry.

"Animal agriculture produces 65% of the world's nitrous oxide emissions which has a global warming impact 296 times greater than carbon dioxide.

Raising livestock for human consumption generates nearly 15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, which is greater than all the transportation emissions combined. It also uses nearly 70% of agricultural land which leads to being the major contributor to deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water pollution.

Ending our meat and dairy production could pause the growth of greenhouse gas emissions for 30 years, new study suggests."

https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomf...

[best_one_there]

I agree with your quoted section.

I'm happy to discuss it, but almost always, including now, it seems to be a waste of time, because I agree with you! I think you're correct in identifying that a vegan diet has lower emissions and externalities than an omnivorous diet.