I can't follow what you're saying. Someone mentioned that India would be surprised that removing animal protein would undo population growth. I see these "hard stats" as being in complete opposition to that idea.

The data says that most of the population eats meat, and nearly of the population consumes animal proteins, but and in spite of that, most of the population is not eating enough protein.

Since they're not eating enough protein, as is, removing animal protein seems like a bad idea. Suggesting that they would be ok even if animal protein were removed, when all evidence says they're having trouble even with animal protein, doesn't seem realistic.

The more realistic approach would be to add more protein to India. One way to do this would be more animals (I don't know how this maths would work).

There are clearly overlaps in those cohorts.

Doubtless plenty of the 60-75% demographic that eats some amount of meat, are getting insufficient protein.

I speculate that's because meat is not readily available to them - though it's likely also true that the non-meat foods they're eating are not filling the protein gap either.

> We could, in short order, if we all wanted to, without having to "ctrl-z the last ~60 years of population growth around the world" as asserted upthread

This is akin to we could wish war away. Like sure. We could.

If you want to reduce chicken consumption, the practical route is reducing population or wealth.