de-meatification imperative

Meatification describes a momentous dietary transformation: the average person on earth today consumes nearly twice as much animal flesh every year did just two generations ago, amidst period of rapid human population growth and with marked disparities between rich poor. Further, meatification is projected to continue in coming three decades, at same time world adds another 2 billion people, concentrated fast-industrializing countries. There overwhelming evidence that bears heavily range problems including climate change, biodiversity loss, food consumption disparities, mounting risks antibiotic resistance, increasing rates non-communicable disease, growing realms suffering. The basic implication inescapable: de-meatification diets an urgent environmental social priority, must be part any project providing critical guidance. are many signs this recognition public health advocacy (including pressure reform guidelines, most notably China), calls for ‘meat tax’, rising levels vegetarianism veganism some countries have long been forefront meatification. After briefly summarizing course imperative, chapter focuses its 3 primary possibilities: conscientious omnivory (which has various hues, ‘green’ or ‘ethical’ meat); vegetarianism; veganism.
 first possibility, omnivory, recognizes need reduce 'meatification' from industrialized countries, but resolutely upholds livestock products small populations mixed farming systems, due their role recycling wastes, returning condensed nutrients land, labour. From perspective, necessity makes meat (but less than today) 'benign indulgence' Simon Fairlee’s terms, challenge source meat, eggs, milk sustainable farms where animals lived decent lives.
 second vegetarianism, accepts functional which includes ability generate useable nutrition along beneficial on-farm services (augmented, some, by pure palate pleasure, love ice cream, cheesy pizza, scrambled eggs), seeks non-violent resolution. But unlike does not justify killing them food, make it ‘benign’, seen desirable possible good lives only reproductive outputs (i.e. unfertilized eggs) wool taken, rather flesh.
 third veganism, rejects all use production consumption, arguing place systems agrarian history continuance present age. This position holds inherently inefficient way meeting nutritional needs reasons: first, there compelling healthy plant-based they often lead improved lower diseases; second, clear tend command land resources, average, do either omnivorous vegetarian diets. Along improving health, more efficiently potential enhance distributional equity. Finally, case insists cannot escape level systematic animals, males productive conception because females become unproductive short natural lifespan.
 In spite key mutual objections current scale industrial production, heated debates omnivores, vegetarians, vegans. Observing this, might assume these groups should aim get along, submerge differences, focus collective energies confronting big, build momentum undermine production. such few, about end point appear unnecessary distractions, extent discredit one another, best left (or least strategically moderated) future day when eradicated.
 paper suggests thinking critically different end-points necessary recognize challenges alliance-building constructively communicating imperative.