It's not a question of being harmless but sustainable. Everything you do will harm or imbalance the environment somehow, the question is how much the environment can recover or if it can at all.
There are a ton of lines I could go to discuss your points, from "meat is not equal to beef" to "could one live healthily only on the things you listed?" (hint: no).
I see tons of articles with statements of journalists but no real evidence, if you want to discuss with references I suggest going to better sources. Actually, I suggest checking your references as well - this was written on [4]:
"[a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating claimed] eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing."
So yeah, even your references "disproving" what I'm saying are actually are actually agreeing with me to a certain extent.
Last, but not least, it's not about who eats what but about sustainable systems - either the system works as a cycle or it will eventually run off. You need to look at the bigger picture.
There are a ton of lines I could go to discuss your points, from "meat is not equal to beef" to "could one live healthily only on the things you listed?" (hint: no).
I see tons of articles with statements of journalists but no real evidence, if you want to discuss with references I suggest going to better sources. Actually, I suggest checking your references as well - this was written on [4]:
"[a major report into the environmental impact of meat eating claimed] eating some meat was good for the planet because some habitats benefited from grazing."
So yeah, even your references "disproving" what I'm saying are actually are actually agreeing with me to a certain extent.
Last, but not least, it's not about who eats what but about sustainable systems - either the system works as a cycle or it will eventually run off. You need to look at the bigger picture.