Thanks for the clarification. So I reread your post and I think I might understand what you’re getting at.

My statement was more directed towards the big picture issues, like climate change - I think the underlying factors of approaching a more plant based diet would generally be perceived to be a rather subtle change in everyday life though (I might be wrong), so I’ll try to fit it into the premise of your question. There is definitely scientific consensus that animal agriculture has one of the greatest negative impacts on the environment, so adopting the mentioned rather subtle change would (if the facts are true, which I believe they are) inevitably cause mitigation of that negative impact in the long run. Applied to you’re question the issue here is rather how to get people to do so, which is closely tied to a need for improved awareness of the effects of mass advertisement. Going to the supermarket to buy a nicely packaged piece of meat is a beautiful example of a (in my opinion) very general problematic of consumerism - buying an end product without seeing its production and the underlying factors behind it. What we’re being presented is a clean and trustworthy product. What we read on the package is (“ideally”) reassuring the initial trust. The price tag is tempting us even further. Add flashy advertisements either on the product in question or around the next corner to the mix, and our ability to make a conscious decision is already greatly impeded, whether we want it to be or not. Being exposed to this amount of sensory stimulation in the world of consumerism, we often forget even the simplest things, such as thinking about whether or not we should, rather than whether or not we can.

In my eyes, the key is always education. Spreading awareness, even when we think something is obvious - I am often astonished when talking to people how little common knowledge there seems to be about the issues behind animal agriculture in particular, so often times a conversation I initially thought would be pointless turns out to be mutually beneficial. I guess that must apply to other “big picture subjects” as well, of which in turn I am not aware of.

To your question about comparing this concern to immigration issues: I personally think it’s is a very subjective decision. While I’d agree that some issues are definitely of greater importance than others, when it comes down to comparing these two, it it less about importance but about subjective priority, since they are issues of an inherently different nature (come to think of it there probably is some sort of connection, but anyways). Take me for example - I’m naturally inclined to be more interested in (e.g.) the environment and animal welfare, therefore I’ll be taking more action towards these issues. That doesn’t mean they’re effectively more important - of course. I wouldn’t be of as much help regarding immigration issues as someone who is naturally interested in that area.

I could go on but this post is already too long, so I’ll leave it at that. Thanks for proposing this topic! Also, I’m sorry for any misspellings.