I would say a good reason to believe that is that many science endeavours, that are highly funded, are working on lab-grown meats, with fair progress.

Evolution is not a morally guided system, well its not a guided system at all. Organisms evolved to reproduce, thats it, many things, good and bad have come from it, but we cannot decided what is good or bad based on its results.

While your testimonial may be valid, I hope you would note that a single person's subjective analysis of their health is of very low value compared to large sample size, statistical data. I will read your essay in time.

'1. The planet and its plants and animals don't exist for humans to eat it up.'
I don't know what your worldview is, but how could you say that naturally, humans are not meant to eat animals? Do you think there is some greater purpose of animals that is not that they should be eaten? I'm confused.

'2. If one eats solely for the purpose of living, one might as well eat cardboard. Or soylent green.'
If by living you mean staying alive for as long as possible, then no, one should not just eat cardboard.

Well I don't think they're are any, or many vegans who argue for no meat consumption for the sake of a particular species, they mostly put forward ethical, environmental, or human health-related arguments.

In terms of ethics, I would much prefer to eat lab-grown meats, as supposedly they would have the same health benefits. It is important to consider though, what the ingredients for the lab-grown meats are, and their impact. I am also interested in your claim of population reduction, whilst that may directly reduce carbon emissions, is that necessary? It appears at the moment, that a switch to renewable resources and energy sources as well as carbon capture will be sufficient in preventing major warming?

I would partially disagree with what you've said, as I think pro-environment government seats such as the greens are beneficial, and I prefer action on climate change. However, I do agree there is the corporatisation of the vegan name, which expands and creates misinformation, but we should note this also exists on all other sides of the food industry, and so all research should be cautiously conducted.

Thank you, that's understandable.

The distinguishability of organisms is dependent on their complexity, especially in near complexity. For almost any organism with any sort of ability for memory, there should be some distinguishability. As behavioural characteristics are mostly due to life experiences. For more simple nervous systems, ones without memory or cognition, there still can be noticeable differences, but not due to life experiences, but rather to due slight differences in development, either due to genetics, or early life development environment itself. As long as an organism has behaviour, (a coordinated response due to stimuli) there may be some ways to differentiate. It may become difficult at the level of bacteria for example, as mutations are so few between generations, that there may be two organisms that are genetically identical. In these cases the only hope you may have in differentiation is in the tiniest individualities in cell structure, causing slightly different reactions to stimuli.

So truly, as long as two organisms aren't completely identical in every way, given enough time, you could theoretically distinguish between organisms.