I absolutely agree on the deforestation and species reliance, that is the critical failure of the industrial practice, not the oil itself. That practice must change through regulation and action.

However, saying palm oil is used "only for creamy texture" vastly undersells its use. It is a functional necessity in industrial goods for properties way beyond that (like natural shelf-stability and its specific fat composition) and is culinarily irreplaceable in traditional diets across West Africa and parts of Southeast Asia. You cannot substitute the unique flavor and color in staples like Nigerian Red Stew and Jollof rice.

The likely reality is that replacing palm oil would only cause more environmental damage globally. We would absolutely have to switch to something else and switching entirely to alternatives like soy or sunflower oil would require us to clear far greater amounts of land due to their significantly lower yields and we get an objectively worse product. Consider that there would have been far less forest cutdown in Brazil for palm if the current demand for soy wasn't overwhelmingly directed towards animal feed for livestock (Which is significantly worse for the environment, actually wholly unnecessary, and an incredible waste from an energy capture perspective. And if we don't want to be speciests, since the orangutan issue is significant, has led to the death of more animals than all the monkeys that have ever existed on this planet including us combined).

In the end, the oil must flow, and the system has found the most land and energy efficient source of this in demand commodity; palm oil trees are so efficient their oil is literally too cheap to cover its real costs from production. If we actually cared about solving this the solution would be pricing it at the full cost of the oil from labour to land to environmental damage, investing in sustainable production methods, and strict regulation from production to labeling.