It wouldn't have been completely implausible either I guess. Maybe one could roast bones to a crispy texture and eat it as a crunchy snack

That's because the volume of production of other oils is much less. Producing the same volume of oil from other sources will consume up to 20 times the land while depriving the local community of their livelihood.

At the end of the day, I think immediate human outcomes should take priority over future sustainability considerations. Although the cost of environmental destruction should be built into the cost of goods through consumer choice, the sheer efficiency of palm oil production makes it the ideal oil producing crop.

Moreover, rainforests benefit everyone in the world but the opportunity cost of maintaining them (compared to the benefit of clearing the land for economically productive usage) is entirely on the host country. This applies to SEA and Brazil, when Reddit was outraged by the Amazon logging a few years ago. If the rest of the world enjoy the benefits of forests and biodiversity, it only makes sense for governments to pay the host countries part of the lost economic value from clearing forest land.

Right, but in order to decrease production of palm oil you need to either decrease demand or increase supply of other types of comparable oils. I'm saying that substituting palm oil for any other type of oil will incur a higher human and environmental cost in some way or other.

On the contrary, you can consider most palm oil to be as sustainable as it gets. Given that demand stays constant, palm oil is one of the most efficient oils to produce. Any alternative will be more damaging than palm oil.

The issue is the level of demand rather than the medium to satisfy the demand.