[yesfitz]

I hesitate to use the word "quibbling" now, but it seems like a poor use of time to compare beef when even the most environmentally-friendly beef is multiple times worse than alternatives.

I think this harm-reduction approach might make more sense from a governmental policy perspective, but is otherwise silly for us to take as individuals because we have such comparatively little influence over each other's choices. I wouldn't waste that small influence encouraging someone to make a slightly less bad choice.

The comparison of food to transportation is a bad one. Nutrients are nutrients, and everything else is personal pleasure. In other words, you can easily hit your same macros by replacing animal products with plant products without even having to change grocery stores. You cannot easily transport a mattress on a bicycle instead of a car.

[ActivePattern]

You started this by objecting to my wording ("among the most") when I said fish/chicken are the most sustainable meat options. They are, by a wide margin. Beef’s footprint is roughly 10× higher, so swapping a beef meal for chicken or fish cuts ~90% of those emissions. That’s not a "slightly less bad choice".

Calling harm reduction "silly" because tofu exists just shifts the target. We can hold two thoughts at once: (1) plant-heavy diets are best, and (2) for the vast majority who aren’t going vegan tomorrow, steering from beef to chicken/fish dramatically reduces damage right now. Dismissing that because it’s not maximal purity guarantees we leave real cuts on the table.

[yesfitz]

Most recently you said, "I agree it’s worth comparing beef sources!"

So is there any hypothetical harm reduction that you believe is too small to be worth your time to encourage?