Correlation does not imply causation. Veganism and intellect are correlated because smart people often become wealthier than uneducated people (which creates an evil cycle of poverty) and wealthy people have options, including veganism. Poor people, on the other hand, may have to buy non-vegan fast food in order to avoid starvation, resulting in a positive vegan-education correlation. Furthermore, humans are omnivores, and evolved to hunt and kill. Although beans can replace meat in a diet when counting nutrients, human bodies are complex and veganism has not existed long enough to do detailed longitudinal studies to determine just how much unhealthier a no-meat diet is. The question, then, is why veganism is better than an omnivorous diet, even if there are no health detriments. And please, no "animal ethics" excuses. People that could choose veganism can also vote with their wallets by buying free range meat with no added hormones. Another problem with your plan is that many economies (like Argentina's and several states in the U.S.A.) function on agriculture, including meat. What plans do you have to stabilize all the crashes that happen when you outlaw a carnivorous diet? All this is argued from a straight economics point of view. If you bring up ethics despite my request that you not, since your plan is already unfeasible, I will not respond to you, since you've proven inconsiderate enough to insult an entire political party (of which I am not a member) and then can't be bothered to respond to my question. I only want rebuttals from a political, economic, or social viewpoint.