This is actually a pretty good footnote that a developed discussion should take into account.

As a Vegan (moral position on animals), there is pretty solid evidence that bivalves can be consumed by vegans morally due to their seeming absence of cognitive process.

And the environmental impacts of bivalves in particular are, to my understanding, the best of any form of animal agriculture. They actually increase the cleanliness of water because they are filter feeder, and they don't take up land that is used for other things for the most part

I don't eat them at this juncture. But I see no moral or environmental issue with those who do so, and think one can safely identify themselves as vegan and still eat them.

And the issue with eggs is a bit different. You still have animals that inefficiently convert plant-calories into non-plant calories, taking up land for them to live on, and the land to produce the food to feed them. You end up with massive quantities of chicken waste, which, while better managed than cow waste, still ends up polluting the local environment.

And as a side note, for commercial agriculture, egg production is still atrocious.

If anyone cares about environmentalism beyond climate change, there is no possible argument for animal agriculture. And even merely considering climate change makes it clear animal agriculture needs to be reduced.

This all without considering the moral reasons one could easily use to justify the abolition of the institutions of animal agriculture

Lol, I have perspective bias I guess? I am envious of the rest of the OECD that doesn't have to deal with this.

Religiosity is insanely low in every other developed country