I'm not gonna lie: I got a link to this from someone on Facebook rather than from a scientific source. Still, it kind of makes sense. See what you think!
Here's a quote: "incorporating about 20 to 40% meat in your diet is actually better for the long-term course of humanity than being completely meat-free." How could this be? Meat is really resource-intensive to produce. Well, one idea is that some land is actually well suited to supporting livestock. It's easy to think of gauchos in Argentina as sort of the "way nature intended," but what about here in the US? If we put cattle or buffalo on the central plains rather than trying to grow corn there, we wouldn't be sending 10 tons of soil every second down the mighty Mississippi River (if I'm reading that right). Less soil erosion = more sustainability, and much less pressure on the Ogallala aquifer, much less use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, etc. So yeah: beef for dinner? Or at least, maybe some sustainably farmed tilapia?