Like I said, eating less meat is not enough.
This may not tackle the initial purpose which is to make suffering less, right?

You and I see the problem very differently. I agree that the goal is to reduce suffering, and I agree that people eating less meat reduces suffering, and I agree that attacking or vilifying people who eat any amount of meat is silly and unproductive. And I do think people like you help to move society forward on the issue of respecting animals. But I don’t agree that I should express your opinion. I should express mine. I want to work towards eliminating all unnecessary suffering. And it’s hard to find a clearer or bigger case of unnecessary suffering than people eating animals. I’m not going to say I think it’s great for people to just eat less meat, because I don’t think that. I think it’s unnecessary and it contributes to suffering for no good reason.

I know there are vegans which don't care what other people do, they have made a choice not to contribute to what they see as suffering and that is something I can respect.

If someone really cares about the plight of animals, they will care very much what other people do, even if they choose not to express it. I think you are more valuable to helping animals than people like them. I would much rather see you blogging and talking about it, and challenging positions like mine and getting conversations going about it. You think it’s something that is worth talking about. That’s going to contribute more to helping shift societal attitudes than people quietly eating a vegan diet.

But I don’t think I should be encouraging people to eat less meat. I’m not just coming from a moral absolutist position. My goal is helping animals, and I will do it in whatever way I think will do the most good in the long run (including for future animals). My approach is subject to change based on new information, but based on the current state of knowledge on the issue, it’s not tactically smart to talk about eating less meat if what I want to see is a vegan world. It’s well known from other social movements that you always get less than you ask for. So when I say I think everyone should be vegan, the response of many people is likely to be, “Well, I’m not going to go vegan, but maybe I can eat less meat.” It may seem counter-intuitive, it may seem like when people are challenged with a message they see as extreme or “impossible,” they will just reject and ignore it. But decades of social movement research show that is simply not the case.

It’s even more important for me to continue repeating the “extreme” message because so few people are doing it. And the more it’s discussed in a reasonable manner, the more it becomes considered a legitimate view and topic of conversation. This is already (only recently) starting to be seen as a legitimate topic of discussion in academia, the law, and among effective altruists, and it’s because of the insistence of people who won’t compromise on the message and are able to back it up with logical arguments and evidence.

But actually the “vegan” message is not a huge part of my advocacy because what I really want people to do is start thinking about other animals differently, and I want people to think it’s important to speak up for animals – in their own way, even if they don’t agree with me.

The problem I have with no one ever eating meat again relates to the consequences on the long run.

This is a whole other topic of conversation (which I’m happy to have at some point). For now, I’ll just say that it’s been very well established that humans can be healthy on a vegan diet, so I’m not too interested in what evolutionary scientists have to say about it or whether it is “natural” or not.

Thank you for the conversation.