I just don't believe your claims that this is something uniquely caused by veganism, independent of other factors. You implied that an omnivorous lifestyle is better for the environment, that's what I take contention with.

And I would also tend to agree with you that global agriculture and trade is a disaster. A food network that's people- and planet-driven, and not profit-driven will see more crop diversity, less deforestation, less displacement of people, on and on.

By the way, I do agree with you on your position that vegan living isn't going to save the planet or the animals. Animal liberation and climate crisis reversal doesn't magically occur when we all eat Beyond burgers (not to mention how impossible it is to convince people to go vegan anyways)

I know you've already muted me but I asked that question to be sure I understood what you were trying to claim, because it was ambiguous to me. I'm not sure what's bad faith about that, or anything I've said to you so far.

16th century Spanish colonizers damaged quinoa's national status, and the subsequent introduction of foreign crops did more to diminish their native importance than the 21st century boom in global demand for it did.

I struggled to find sources for this, at least your telling of it. Specifically with regards to Bolivia, it seems like a relatively long history of a downturn in Bolivia's indigenous relationship with quinoa.

By "we" do you mean the U.S.?

“Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.”

ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-d...
Soy farming is the second greatest reason for deforestation in South America, yes, but far behind cattle ranching.

Is there anything else about a vegan lifestyle that causes more ecological harm?