Ahh yes I've heard that science before. It does make sense in that aspect but it isn't a zero sum game is it? My initial rebuttal is thinking the disappearing mass doesn't just disappear, it goes into the more nutrition-rich and dense meat. I can't help but think barring a way to mass-produce meat (like the game presents) or massive degrowth (like the game presents) the existing means of animal agriculture will need to stay in order to not put undue physical deterioration on many people or on production of plant agriculture. But in any case it would be reduced in accordance with discarding the profit motive driving its current ridiculous production... Which of course is the root issue. But yeah if anyone wants to jump in or you want to clarify? I'm not entirely on board with the rationale for delet'ing animal agriculture purely because of the possibly incorrect "common sense"/chauvinist idea that humans are generally omnivorous and do need meat to feasibly meet the requirements for healthy living (of course this is to mean for the vast majority of people, that is to say you couldn't sustainably create the amount of nutrient rich plant food the entire world would need)

When I was thinking about why it would need to be discarded I was thinking that on top of the need to feed animals, and all the byproducts of keeping and kiling them, there's the whole transport chain side of the equation rife with bizarre "capitalist efficiencies" that save money but cause SO MANY problems. That alone would be a massive emissions and resources factor that would be mitigated and greatly reduced by the removal of privatization and the profit motive.