Arguments on purity bore me, one way or the other.
Less ecological impact is better than more ecological impact. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Cheaper food is better than more expensive food. Somewhat healthy diet is better than a diet Lancet is warning you about (ie: too much meat, especially red meat) Using less resources to feed more people is better than using more resources to feed fewer.
Every step from a modern western diet with way too much meat (the one Lancet warns about) to something more reasonable brings benefit basically in relation to how much meat you cut. You can argue that we can't reach the absolute, but it strictly does not matter. If you try to reduce meat and succeed as much as you reasonably can, things improve. You don't have to be a part of this, but surely you realize this is the case?
Exactly. Religions that survive and get promoted are the ones that can thrive in the society they are living in, and that generally requires fitting into the political world of that society.
Religions that criticize the powers that be either overthrow them then become complicit with the new leaders over time, or they get marginalized. Priests had to deal with kings, one way or another.