You don't understand where I'm coming from because apparently it's like me trying to talk about water to a fish. It might be easier to wrap your head around by looking at the tobacco industry and where we would be if we let them write the rules on how much influence they can have. We're doing this right now, but with fossil fuels and meat instead of cigarettes and asbestos.

This isn't actually about veganism, it's about the meat mega industry, the influence it has on shaping public opinion, and how that is parallel to the way big oil operates in regards to threats to their respective market caps.

This is you right now: " There are examples of unsustainable practices that qualify as vegan, therefore the meat industry and their influence on federal policy is as harmless to the environment as any alternative." Sounds a lot like the conclusions we reach on the policy level in regards to fossil fuels vs. nuclear or any alternative.

Miss me with that ignorant bullshit.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

Wifi can be and is beamed just like any other light we manipulate or produce. The more relevant aspect of the discussion is magnitude, not the shape of emission.

It uses light, so technically it does. It's just on the same order of magnitude as the light from a bright star for a useable signal.

Let's be real here. The primary barrier to nuclear development is the fossil fuel industry. They spend money to shape public sentiment and for them, it's money well spent. Ditto for the meat industry towards environmentally positive notions like veganism or even eating less meat.