Writing and reading is linked to intelligence. Exchange of information is linked to intelligence. Science is linked to intelligence.
Food in comparison to what I wrote above has very little to do with intelligence.
Who writes, reads, exchanges information and uses science?
What do most humans eat? Meat.
See the possible connection?
Why would intelligence wane?
Even if there is something in meat that makes our brains work faster with our current knowledge we could find what it is and manufacture it without killing billions of innocent animals for this.
I explained why already. But I'll break it down into the simplest I can get it:
Humans have obviously eaten meat for a long time. Humans are also very intelligent.
Other primates (our evolutionary relatives) have also eaten meat for a long time. But not as much meat as humans do. They are not as intelligent as humans, either.
See the possible connection? Less meat, less intelligence.
As for the "something in meat," yes, it is possible that we may discover it in time. And we could manufacture it, true. As of now, however, we do not know and it is not true.
As for eating manufactured foods, I would hope we are in agreement that it is risky thing to do. Refined sugar is what brought us into a state of escalating obesity, diabetes, and maybe more.
The safest route is to eat foods that are found in nature and tampered with the least.
Why would a HUMAN vegan society that tries to minimize the suffering of animals be violent?
Because apes are violent? What's your logic?
Eventually humans will start growing In Vitro meat so no violence will be involved at all.
Why would they be violent? Because they have no other choice.
I remind you that carnivory and minimizing the suffering of animals are not mutually exclusive. Animals can be killed humanely.
I explained my logic already. I do agree that it is not the sturdiest. I am proposing the idea.
In vitro meat is plausible, but I direct you to my argument against manufactured foods. Doesn't exist yet. Also novel and risky to eat.
What information or research are you basing your argument off of Sewn?
Read my precepts. They are all well-documented, although you are free to argue against them. I am merely presenting a theory here. Connecting the dots in my own way.
If you have a counter-argument, then I would be pleased to hear it.
By the way, you linked to an article that has nothing to do with intelligence. The article argues that humans are omnivores. That is, we are well-adapted to eating meat. The article goes on to explain that meat is, in fact, a necessary part of a healthy human diet because of our need for vitamin B12 and that animals were the only reliable source of this nutrient.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1
From the article:
As intriguing as these arguments may be, the idea that humans are natural vegetarians has "no scientific basis in fact," argues anatomist and primatologist John McArdle.
...people have a low synthesis rate of the fatty acid DHA and of taurine, suggesting out early ancestors relied on animal foods to get these nutrients. Vitamin B-12, also, isn't reliably round in plants. That, Billings says, left "animal foods as the reliable source during evolution."