[MememyselfandIJK]

To the argument that humans are basically herbivores:
This is actually a well-grounded argument. Someone previously said correctly that the major reason that humans show mainly herbivoric features is because we are part of the Primate order, which is descended from and mainly composed of plant eaters. In fact the homo genus only developed meat-eating capacities "recently" (within the last 250,000 years) mainly due to mutations in two genes. Without these genes we would not be able to eat meat (and results in other primates are still not pretty). However, evidence suggests that humans ate meat before we had the capacity to digest it (our ancestors were either too dumb to make the meat-death connection or too dumb to find other sources of food). Humans still prefer to metabolize plants and we still have problems with certain compliments of meat such as negative cholesterol.

[Ter]

@MememyselfandIJK
Can you show me where you read these theories?
Thank you.

[Saeko]

Anyone who doesn't eat meat is a pussy.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Saeko's got it in one!

[MememyselfandIJK]

@MememyselfandIJK Can you show me where you read these theories?Thank you.

If you would like a specific source I recommend The Violinist's Thumb by Samuel Kean.

[anarchist23]

Anyone who doesn't eat meat is a pussy.

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. lol

[mikema63]

I'm going to need a peer reviewed article as evidence for something that flies in the face of every biology class I've ever taken.

Human are omnivorous, there are a variety of nutrient deficiency issues especially in children on a vegan diet. We aren't good at processing iron from plants compared to animal products. We can't get enough vitamin B-12 from plants. Omega 3s are important as well since there is evidence that there isn't enough in a vegan mother's milk to properly support infant brain development.

The list goes on. Comparisons of teeth are not nearly as suggestive as nutritional requirements of our metabolisms.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

To the argument that humans are basically herbivores:
This is actually a well-grounded argument. Someone previously said correctly that the major reason that humans show mainly herbivoric features is because we are part of the Primate order, which is descended from and mainly composed of plant eaters. In fact the homo genus only developed meat-eating capacities "recently" (within the last 250,000 years) mainly due to mutations in two genes. Without these genes we would not be able to eat meat (and results in other primates are still not pretty). However, evidence suggests that humans ate meat before we had the capacity to digest it (our ancestors were either too dumb to make the meat-death connection or too dumb to find other sources of food). Humans still prefer to metabolize plants and we still have problems with certain compliments of meat such as negative cholesterol.

This is conditionally true: long ago in the distant past, some of our earliest primate ancestors may have been (mostly) herbivorous; our appendix may have once served the function of helping to digest plant matter. There are specimens of ancestral species of ours that show a plant-based diet, going back 12 million years. However, homo erectus teeth, to my knowledge (last time I checked; there could possibly be some new specimens I'm not aware of), consistently show evidence of an omnivorous diet, and that consists of a range of about 2 m.y.a. to about 150,000 y.a. or so.

But no, humans are no longer herbivores, although we are still capable of living off an herbivorous diet.

[Saeko]

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. lol

I guess that explains why he lost.

[anarchist23]

Anyone who doesn't eat meat is a pussy.

What about Mike Tyson?

[stephen50right]

This is conditionally true: long ago in the distant past, some of our earliest primate ancestors may have been (mostly) herbivorous; our appendix may have once served the function of helping to digest plant matter. There are specimens of ancestral species of ours that show a plant-based diet, going back 12 million years. However, homo erectus teeth, to my knowledge (last time I checked; there could possibly be some new specimens I'm not aware of), consistently show evidence of an omnivorous diet, and that consists of a range of about 2 m.y.a. to about 150,000 y.a. or so.

But no, humans are no longer herbivores, although we are still capable of living off an herbivorous diet.

Our evolution certainly had something to do with the available food supply, just like any other species. However when it came to animals, plants were the food of necessity because basically we were too damn slow to catch up to most animals, and the ones we could catch up to such as a grazing herd, we were too weak to kill anyway.

Fortunately somewhere along the line we developed the ability to throw fast enough and accurate enough to kill animals with rocks, spears, etc, then developed hunting techniques around that, and developed brainpower as we went along.

Next thing ya know we were playing baseball.

[Ter]

If you would like a specific source I recommend The Violinist's Thumb by Samuel Kean.

Your evidence is a book?
Sorry, that does not fly.
See Mike's post. There is no evidence presented that humans are herbivores.
Omnivores we are.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Your evidence is a book?
Sorry, that does not fly.

What kind of source do you want then? Did you even look at it?

[Suntzu]

I guess that explains why he lost.

No, only had one testicle.

[Ter]

What kind of source do you want then? Did you even look at it?

A peer-reviewed article in a reputed scientific journal would be a good start.
Even then, the evidence should be weighed against the overwhelming evidence available that humans are omnivores.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Even then, the evidence should be weighed against the overwhelming evidence available that humans are omnivores.

Of course, modern humans are omnivores. I am talking about millions of years ago.

[colliric]

Of course, modern humans are omnivores. I am talking about millions of years ago.

This was probably prior to the existence of the homo-sapien species, which all of us are. Homo-sapiens have always been omnivores and always cooked food. We need to be more specific when we say "humans were herbivores". Species prior to Homo-sapiens may have been herbivores, but our species has always been omnivorous.

The appendix actually controls bacteria infection in our modern bodies and is an important organ for our immune system specifically. It still has a use today. It is an urban myth that it is "no longer useful". It has been proven over and over again that human beings with their appendix intact have better immunity to disease infection. It may have been more useful to us prior to the invention of penicillin and better sanitation, but keeping the organ intact has been shown to be beneficial in starving off infections and also fighting cancer.

Don't ever have it removed just on a whim.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Being an omnivore doesn't mean that you have to eat meat in order to survive, it just means that you can eat meat. A vegetarian is still an omnivore also because they eat milk, eggs, and cheese, which are all animal products that would preclude them from being considered in any of the traditional classifications (frugivore, insectivore, herbivore, etc). At the same time, we do not really have significantly carnivorous teeth. We most closely resemble frugivores in our teeth pattern.



Notice how significantly pronounced the carnivore's incisors are. Those were evolved for a clear purpose, sheering and biting into their prey, as both a weapon and an implement for tearing up their prey. Notice also how sharp their molars are, for further sheering before digestion.

Now look at a human's incisors. Still have some pronouncement, but definitely not that much compared to the carnivore. They are more significant than the frugivore's however, which is not surprising since meat has certainly been an ancillary part of our diet and some of our primate cousins' diets (like Chimpanzees, the earlier humans, neanderthals, etc).

Also notice the similarity in the molars, how they are relatively flat and relatively the same size as the rest of our teeth. The closest to us are obviously the frugivores. If you think about eating a fruit, it's very obvious why that would be the case. Furthermore it makes sense that humans would eat a lot of fruit, since that would be the easiest source of food to find and eat. A lot of the vegetables and starches that we now eat are relatively recent in their domestication, whereas fruits are a relatively safe bet and can be reliably determined to not be poisonous.

Humans have sought meat as part necessity and part status symbol, really. At this point the problem with advocating immediate ending of all meat consumption is that all of our agricultural systems are set up to profit, and meat is a huge profit once you consider all the subsidies. I think the best course of action is to take away the subsidies on meat and create much higher standards of animal treatment as well as enforcement of our current cruelty laws.

Personally I think eating meat is bad for you and the environment. I understand the strong cultural attachment to meat, but don't think it's right to take the life of an animal that doesn't want to die. Regardless of what we can eat, and what other animals eat, that doesn't mean it's right for us to personally kill other animals since we know better.

Even accepting that it's ok to kill other animals, I still think it's wrong for us to have slaughterhouses and to treat animals like an object rather than a form of life that can suffer/feel pain, have families that they love and care for, and have unique individual personalities. Anyone that has ever raised animals know that all those things are true. So why do we treat animals like they are commercial products? Because if we acknowledged an animal's right to life we would have to question our own lifestyle up to this point and how we have benefited from the exploitation of animals. It's much simpler to say that animals have no rights than it is to come to grips with how much suffering we have been responsible for in order for us to enjoy our dinners more.

The big problem is that eating animals is way too resource intensive. Why? Simple ecology. The most efficient form of energy production in the animal kingdom is photosynthesis. It is the only way that energy is introduced into ecological systems. Right above that are the herbivores/primary consumers, but they have to eat the plants/primary producers in order to get their energy, and a large amount of that energy is used as they grow and generally go about their day to day lives (moving, standing, even resting uses energy). So even the fattest cow that has the most meat on its bones is always going to have use a large amount of resources that will never be passed on. If we want to feed everyone the most efficiently, we would go directly to the source of energy, which is the plants.

Our refusal to do so is killing us, both environment and health wise. We'll see what happens in time, though.

[One Degree]

Interesting thread. I am basically a reductionist. If I eat meat, I don't have to think too much about what else I eat. If I don't eat meat, then I need to be a nutrition expert. Besides, I like meat.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Not true, you just need to eat a variety of food and take a B vitamin supplement. Also whatever extra effort you spend on nutrition is more than made up for by the improvement in your health.