How can you see this as a valid argument ? Human have to eat to survive. Any animal alive have an impact on its environment. Any other political proposition other than the eradication of the human race is anti-ecological at this point !

Bike instead of cars ? Making the bike cost energy, which production will always have an impact.

Walking ? No, you consume energy, will have to eat more.

Insulating existing houses to consume less energy ? No way, the building industry pollute way too much !

Plus, you say that is we keep consuming a few dozen percent of the soy we used to eat, it would still destroy the environment. But the main issue is that we keep expanding this agriculture, much more than it existing in the first place. Agriculture existed for thousand of years with a non-lifethreatening level of environmental impact.

Sorry if you were sincere in your critique, I'm quite aggressive here, but I have to admit I have a hard time believing you are sincere here and not just trolling.