Hunting or gathering?

As a vegatarian, I often come across the argument that meat eating is "natural," and is what we evolved to do, and is what drove man to become smarter. I looked this up on new scientist, and this is what they said:

"For 40 years, anthropologists have leaned toward the notion that rich, nourishing meat - brought home by hunters and shared out - played a crucial role in human origins. This would explain why evolution selected for larger, smarter hunters with lighter jaws and teeth: precisely the changes seen as Homo erectus arose in eastern Africa.

The hunter-driven scenario also included the formation of nuclear family groups, in which men hunted while women gathered plants and cared for their children, thus kicking off humans' social evolution as well.

But this picture may be wrong on several counts. To begin with, early men probably were not bringing meat home to the family. Most evidence of hunting by early African Homo erectus comes from archaeological sites containing both animal bones and primitive stone tools. But most of these lie next to rivers, the kind of predator-filled habitat that today's Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania call a "city of lions"."

Hmmm. We obviously have an HBD issue here. Because most of the pioneer fund thinkers posit that light skinned individuals are generally smarter because they evolved in cold climates, where intelligence was favored for hunting. But, there is actually no mainstream consensus on the diet of early man. Why? Because man evolved in different climates, and to acknowledge that would mean to acknowledge that race exists.

Anyway, I'm still going to be a veggy, because regardless of what man did 10,000 years ago, unnecessary suffering is simply wrong. After all, to condemn animals to a life of suffering due to low intelligence can also mean we can legitimately condemn African Americans to slavery because of our superior intelligence.