I get the moral argument you're trying to make but as an archaeologist it's not a great argument for what I was trying to convey.

For the majority of all human history meat was a very important component of our diets, and for the vast majority of our ancestors this has been needed for our survival.

Once agriculture was invented, fairly recently compared to all human history, meat was still needed to supplement the diet.

Each culture that has existed developed their own foods and ways of preparation. After thousands of years these traditions have evolved and survived to today. People across the world value their food traditions immensely. There are so few things we see of repeated importance in human culture, but food traditions seem universal.

This doesn't speak of the morality or necessity of these food ways, but we'd be ignorant to ignore their very real cultural importance and impacts.

The option to not eat meat in terms of human history is basically brand new and I do believe it will begin to grow generation by generation as more people make the switch and then those new traditions spread.

But anyway don't confuse a culture's very real existence with a statement of morality. Those are two different topics entirely.

What's an ALF polycule?

Unsurprisingly, both of them are pretty bad for health and big industries.

This implies health and big industries are aligned, whatever fence you're on, that makes little sense. Contradictory.

Who is exploiting anyone? Choosing to not eat meat is a dietary preference, regardless of your irrelevant use of quotation marks.

Maybe you'd make more progress if stopped calling people "brainwashed". That's ACTUALLY disingenuous.