And I suggested that you were mistaken with your suggestion. You are the one who failed to respond in any meaningful way to any of the points I made. Instead you claimed irrelevance and tenuousness and called me a nut, and now a troll.

The fact is I presented points of an argument countering your position and you simply engaged in denigration without the slightest hint of substantiation. I find your response quite archetypal of a True Believer, not a critical thinker, and certainly not someone who should be handing out suggestions for life changes to others.

Your points sir? Or was it simply name calling you were after to begin with.

What argument of Hoffer's did you find tenuous? Which are irrelevant now?

You want to make the world better? Let's start with some critical thinking.

Number of times the end of the world is prophesied? Silly question, no way to know for certain, but this is a large number.
Number of times the end of the world is realized?... well you get the picture.
Heuristic? If someone or some group is suggesting alarmism, especially in a complex system, assuming bullshit is the only safe bet.

How did the earth of times past support such a huge number of herbivores?
Take a look at Allan Savory's work. Carbon sequestration through cattle. De-desertification through cattle. Feeding the masses... yep you guessed it, using cattle; cattle properly subsisting on grass, not grain. Cattle are the answer. Government grain subsidies are the problem.

Vegetarians care about the number of animal lives taken? Bullshit. The number of rodents and reptiles killed in grain production far outweighs the number of cattle we could possibly consume feeding people. Vegetarians are just meat murderers of smaller animals.

Additional reading?
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...