Molson Hart

From the health aspect we haven't evolved 2M+ years of factory farming that involves heavy doses of antibiotics for instance. In addition, historically meat was not nearly as big a share of human's diets as it typically is today --it essentially was a luxury good

That is some colossal bullshit right there: Homo sapiens evolution is in fact tied to great amounts of cooked meat consumption. No big brain without that.

Flying fallacies! Sure there is evidence that brain evolution is correlated with the adoption of meat in our diet. It was an expedient way to get more protein. Does that mean we should continue to eat that way when we have other sources of plant proteins (e.g. nuts and legumes)?

So what you are telling me is that we should do the contrary of what brought us to the status of dominant species on the planet? And that because...?

Again just because something has been prevalent in the past doesn't imply that it is the most expedient to our future evolution. That type of logic would literally keep us in the stone age....

This is an immensely stupid thing to say: technology is not biology, and the fact that I even have to state that is surreal.

In fact your entire argument is built on foundations of faux-morality and then topped with pseudo science. Why should we be eating something that has an ingredient list long as as that of some industrial paint, and has MORE environmental impact than the original?

Also: no answer about the "poor animals" who maybe want to stay alive, even if they end their lives as food AS WOULD HAPPEN IN THE WILD, instead of being eradicated?