Feeding calories to livestock and eating them is much less efficient than directly eating plants.
this is largely irrelevant, since most of the plants that are fed to animals are crop seconds or parts of plants that we don't want to eat. they eat, for instance, cottonseed, which we grow for textiles, and soy cake, which is a byproduct of soybean oil production.
aside, plants love spreading seeds. they probably think it's better to grow more of them.
Its just as unrealistic that one person affects global pollution as much as it is unrealistic that one person go and personally stop the pollution at the source, isnt it?
no, one person can shut down a pipeline. it's just a valve you can turn off.
I think you're mixing up the means with the end. if your goal is to reduce animal product production, you need to go where animal products are produced and stop it. if your goal is to reduce pollution, go to where pollution is produced, and stop it. but simply stopping consumption, on an individual basis, isn't going to do it.
they coined the term and are often referenced for their definition.