Hm. Well, for starters, points 1) and 2) are effectively the same. We get hungry because we need nutrients. So you're down to two points. Beyond that, to imply that westerners don't eat food primarily to live is... an odd assertion. Everybody eats food to live. We in the West can AFFORD to eat what we like (excepting, of course, people in lower income brackets, and people living in food deserts, and people with certain dietary needs and..), but that comes secondary to eating food to live. Which again, primary reason to eat. So between the two points provided: 1) "we eat because we get hungry/need the energy" and 2) "We eat because we enjoy eating," point one is clearly more valid than point two.

Following that, part of the implication of the supplied article is that if we continue on our current trend, not even we in the West will be able to afford to eat what we want. So in the spirit of preserving our freedom to choose, we should just choose less when we can.

After that... I really don't know how to address your point. Not because it's unassailable, but because it's just really, really singleminded. If I'm reading you right, you're saying first and foremost, "I eat meat because I like meat, and I find it easy to eat meat." Which, yeah, fine. and then you jump to "because I like meat and find it easy, I shouldn't be called upon to change my eating habits." Which again, your choice, although it's a lazy choice in the context of this discussion. Then you seem to make a dubious leap in logic to "no other nutrient source would keep me from getting fat." Also: "the only protein I could substitute for meat is tofu." And then straight to "ergo, synthetic meat is the only way to go."

Hey look, if your point is "I love meat," well fine. In the context of another discussion, that's a great place to land. I love meat, too! Let's have a meat party. But in the context of this discussion, which to reiterate is about balancing meat consumption against environmental impact, "but I love meat" isn't really a valid or constructive argument. It's in fact the exact viewpoint that the article hopes to undermine. And the reasons you've supplied for eating more meat are arbitrary and based on no evidence that I know of.