Not sure why he believes citing that graph is some great counterpoint. Less demand does factually translate to less supply and therefore less suffering. The problem is that populations still continue to grow and the number of vegetarians/vegans is neglible to overall growth.

Obviously if every vegan and vegetarian suddenly began eating meat again, then that graph would only increase in rate of change.

Change the minds of more people, and watch that change the rate of supply of course.

i didn't like the bucket analogy when i wrote it. i don't blame you.

i'm just looking for proof of causation between being vegan and suffering being reduced.

On a larger scale with many vegans refusing to eat meat less animals are bred into existence to be slaughtered.

that has never happened. if it had, if being vegan had caused production of meat to fall, then i think you could make a case. but it hasn't so you can't.

Inefficiency. Entropy. Laws of thermodynamics.

these are not magic words which take the place of a properly constructed argument.

In another way, if you are saying that whether these animals roam free and die by the nature versus being grown in confined cages to be harvested… Then I wager whether if aliens descended upon this planet and you could either live as you do or you and your offspring be raised like cattle in a dark cramped alien farm, hauled around by convey-belts for the slaughter — tell me, which would you prefer?

this is a nonsequitur. it has nothing to do with whether being vegan reduces sufffering, which it doesn't.

what year did you go vegan?

how much has suffering been reduced?

Less demand means less livestock raised

that's not causal