The question is already biased here : you could have ask if we think everyone SHOULD be vegan.

If you say ‘needs’ it is hard to understand what do you mean and it pushes the idea of forcing people which puts a negative light on the end goal.

'Need` for what? The environment crisis? Sustaining a certain amount of people/growth? Ethical concern?

Obviously any vegan will want others to be vegan, the same way any capitalist wants everyone to be capitalist, communist the same, etc. The opposite works too, non-vegan won’t be happy to be forced into veganism.

In my opinion the better question is asking if we should be vegan. Now everyone can participate to the debate without feeling forced. Also trying to push rules on people who disagrees is not the best way usually, it is tolerable when they are in extreme minority.

The vegan question has been talked for many years now and beside conservatism there are not a lot of arguments against veganism in theory. The practice is way more difficult, especially with current communication being held by weird billionaires and democratic processes being crushed all over the world.

I am sorry I don’t see any debate here, I hope I made my point clear.

No. Being vegan is unhealthy, regardless of taking artificial supplements. You will most likely be deficient of B12, vitamin D, calcium, … Also vegetal protein is different from animal protein; afaik animal protein is better and easier to digest for humans. You notice the vegan effects it with time: cognitive functions diminish, weaker, hair becomes unhealthy like hair loss, …

So if you want, take vegetarianism as a compromise.