your reduction in demand for meat makes them cheaper for others, which will lead some to increase in their consumption...
Following this logic the amount of consumption of any given non-essential good would never change.
You’ve misunderstood the line you quoted. It’s only saying that other people’s meat consumption will increase by some fraction of the amount you’ve reduced your consumption, not that people will increase their consumption by however much you reduce yours.
Yep, I’m just saying that the equilibrium change in the quantity consumed will be less than the individual’s foregone consumption, not that it will be zero. How much less depends on the elasticities of supply and demand.
You’ve misunderstood the line you quoted. It’s only saying that other people’s meat consumption will increase by some fraction of the amount you’ve reduced your consumption, not that people will increase their consumption by however much you reduce yours.
Yep, I’m just saying that the equilibrium change in the quantity consumed will be less than the individual’s foregone consumption, not that it will be zero. How much less depends on the elasticities of supply and demand.