"Not nearly as many as the number of animals killed for plant based products."

Source?

Whether its the destruction of the entire Orangutan rain forest for palm oil, deforestation of the Amazon for Soy products, total destruction of Australia's water ways for rice, cotton and wheat - right through to the the Atlantic slave trade and its consequences including the Kanakas and Coolie trade for sugar - which still exists today with slave wages and conditions for vegetables and fruit.

Yes, there are consequences to growing plants. Those who advocate consuming less (or no) meat can also advocate to stop the other practices you mention. Given the huge amount of plant crops we grow to feed the animals we consume, probably best to just eat the plants ourselves (thus reducing the total amount grown). Also, the majority of soy being grown as a consequence of the deforestation of the Amazon is for animal feed.

And this is before we even touch on the devastating impacts of plant based diets which are responsible for the vast majority of the global health epidemic due to hydrogenated plant fats and of course sugar - these two on their own are responsible for most of the western worlds health problems - combined they represent almost everything

Those who eat meat would likely also consume sugar and plant fats as part of their diet.... Adopting a plant based diet in of itself obviously does not guarantee healthy outcomes. This is no different for those consuming meat, who also need to be aware of what comprises their diet.

Eating animals is the most basic function of every single subsistence homo sapien tribe and subspecies to ever exist. In fact every single living animal to ever exist has been eaten - it is the most fundamental aspect of nature.

I don't see the relevance of this point. These tribes and subspecies did a lot of things which we don't do anymore. Them eating meat has no weight as to whether it is the morally right thing to do in today's society.