That's more or less what I intended them to be. Isn't doing only the most effective activities available to you... a good idea?

I felt like it was a bit unfair for you to use fully general counterarguments against veganism in particular. However, after your most recent reply, I can better see where you're coming from. I think a better message to take from this essay (although I'm not sure Peter would agree) is that *people in general should eat less meat, not necessarily you in particular. If you can get one other person to become a veg*an in lieu of becoming one yourself, that's just as good.

I think the disagreement is about the ethical character of vegetarianism, not about whether it's a psychologically or aesthetically appealing life-decision (to some people).

If non-vegans are less effective at reducing suffering than vegans due to a quirk of human psychology (i.e. cognitive dissonance preventing them from caring sufficiently about non-humans), then this becomes an ethical issue and not just a psychological one.

To assess (4) I think we'd need to look at the broader ethical and neurological theories that entail it, and assess the evidence for and against them. This is a big project.

I agree with you here. I feel sufficiently confident that animal suffering matters, but the empirical evidence here is rather weak.