Regardless of the potential positive aspects of this, no. Now, personally, when politics are concerned, I tend to dislike Republicans and Democrats equally; I am no "Repubtard," as you so [i]eloquently[/i] put it. I believe both ends of the political spectrum result in less freedom for the people. All that said, this is a [i]verdammt schrecklich*[/i] idea. First off, there's the matter of you saying that the government should [i]force everyone to cease eating meat,[/i] because you think it would advance the species. This is [i]scarily[/i] similar to justifications used by the National Socialist German Worker's Party: that people not of Nordic descent, the disabled, and the elderly were holding back humanity, so they should be killed [i]en masse[/i] to allow the species to advance. While what you are suggesting is by no means on par with genocide, it [i]does[/i] mean taking rather basic rights to choose away from people, along with other repercussions. The first of these that comes to mind (and, unfortunately, the only one that I have time to get into at this moment) is the vast number of animals that would begin to starve to death slowly and painfully rather than a much more humane death from hunting or slaughter. It's a very simple game of numbers: no animals being killed for food means more animals, and more animals means less food per animal, which, in turn, means gradual and painful starvation. The ecosystem simply cannot sustain the sudden swell in animal population that would result from removing hunting and slaughter from the equation. I really wish I had time to get deeper into the issue, but unfortunately I do not, so this will have to be all I say for the moment. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to try to prove so. Key word here being try. *German [spoiler]And yes, I realize that this is most likely satire, but I still feel like this needed to be said.[/spoiler]