NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?

Omnivores. Look at your teeth. Also, you have to be very careful about pulse consumption if you're vegetarian. However, that's not a good argument against vegetarianism, that it's "unnatural"… we can conquer nature! (and no, I'm not a vegetarian)

We are naturally omnivores, though some (like me, more or less) choose to be herbavores. I don't know if someone could survive for that long as a complete carnivore. Has it been tried?

Omnivores. Any PETA supporters will be shot.

Omnivores - large-ish canines, incisors and premolars for shearing meat, incisors (double use) and molars for harcore chewing and breaking plant matter. Also, we have trouble getting certain amino acids - that we cannot produce ourselves - from plants. Besides, wouldn't meat kill us if we were herbivores?

Wow-how many food and eating related threads are going now?
I guess everyone is thinking of their next meal.

I'm pretty sure where omnivorous. We have an appetite for meats,vegetables, fruits, etc.. We have teeth designed to deal with all these foods and a digestive system that processes most of it.

[vegetarian]

omnivores of course. someone actually believes we are herbivores? where did they get their info? granted we arent meant to eat large quantities of meat but thats the problem of the individual. I choose not to eat meat but dont fault others for doing so nor do I put myself on some sort of pedastle for my choice.

We are naturally omnivores, though some (like me) choose to be herbavores. I don't know if someone could survive for that long as a complete carnivore. Has it been tried? Yeah. All of Texas.

I went ahead and voted Omni, by nature, because a vast majority are (except the hippies down on the commune near my uncle, who raise their children sans meat). But then God has smote (I think "smitten" makes more sense there, but I think that means twitterpated) the very few of us who.....are.....no longer omnivores.....I'll just shut the hell up now.

We are naturally omnivores, though some (like me) choose to be herbavores. I don't know if someone could survive for that long as a complete carnivore. Has it been tried?


I did for a while. peanut butter-like dumps and always running out of floss

I eat carrion. Got a tic-tac?

Our digestive tract is not as acidic as a pure carnivore, such as a dog, so it is obvious that we're intended to eat *mostly* grains and vegetable proteins, but it's also been proven over the years that certain kinds of meats are essential to human development. What I am reasonably sure, however, is that nothing in our system is designed to consume all of the refined sugars and preservatives that we shove down our throats on a daily basis.

People may choose, of course, to eat as they wish.

granted we arent meant to eat large quantities of meat but thats the problem of the individual.

Debatable. The first human beings were hunter-gatherers. Their entire diet was most likely simply meat and whatever nuts and berries they could find. The diet of humans has evolved along with society. As humans began to cultivate the land, they began to adapt to a more agrarian diet. Some, however, seem to still be more well-suited to the hunter-gatherer diet.

We are naturally omnivores, though some (like me) choose to be herbavores. I don't know if someone could survive for that long as a complete carnivore. Has it been tried?

Inuit tend to live that way... for the simple reason that nothing but meat is available, for the most time of the year no plants grow in the Arctic.
It is a difficult diet, but possible. Most vitamins can be obtained from meat, but I really have no clue where they would get their Vitamin C from...

We are naturally omnivores, though some (like me) choose to be herbavores. I don't know if someone could survive for that long as a complete carnivore. Has it been tried?

Actually, yes, culturally, the Intuit are almost exlusively carnivors; living off a diet composed of about 98% fish, with rare vegtables or fruits in their diet.

Interestingly enough, their primary source of Vitamin C, is raw fish.

Inuit tend to live that way... for the simple reason that nothing but meat is available, for the most time of the year no plants grow in the Arctic.
It is a difficult diet, but possible. Most vitamins can be obtained from meat, but I really have no clue where they would get their Vitamin C from...

Elch, I could never live like that.

I eat carrion. Got a tic-tac?


the good thing about carrion is sometimes you get a crow too..

No doubt that what they ate ate some fruit...

Omnivores. From the biological point of view, this obvious. Just take a look at our dentition, we are adapted to be omnivores. Seriously. :rolleyes:

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?

Jews, Muslims, Hindus Agree On Chicken (http://www.theonion.com/)
GENEVA—After years of sectarian violence, a coalition of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus signed an international resolution Monday, confirming their mutual appreciation of chicken dishes. "Whether it is breaded with matzo, served as shwarma, or covered in tikka masala sauce, chicken is the one meat upon which all faiths can agree," said spokesman Jerome Maliszewski, addressing an assembly of rabbis, mullahs, and shamans. "Let this friendly exchange of recipes be the first tentative step toward everlasting peace."

Attendees at the combination summit and potluck dinner labeled it a qualified success, regretting the altercation that broke out between factions with differing views on skewer length. :rolleyes:

The apendix, wich is designed to digest vegetable is atrophied on human. So we migth have been designed to eat more vegetable food before. But evolution as lead us to the all migthy meat!

Our digestive tract is not as acidic as a pure carnivore, such as a dog, so it is obvious that we're intended to eat *mostly* grains and vegetable proteins, but it's also been proven over the years that certain kinds of meats are essential to human development. What I am reasonably sure, however, is that nothing in our system is designed to consume all of the refined sugars and preservatives that we shove down our throats on a daily basis.

People may choose, of course, to eat as they wish.

Yeah, it's troubling me a lot that a "Chunky's seafood soup" can rest 4 years on a table before being eaten.

No doubt that what they ate ate some fruit...

Can you actually obtain Vitamin C this way?

We are not very good carnivores OR herbivores... lacking the sharp edges required to be truly proficient hunters, and the capacity to actually digest cellulose.

Thus, we are not well suited to catch fast-moving food, and cannot really digest the stuff that stays still.

When you loot pure herbivores, you usually see weird plumbing. Digestive tracts with curious designs... from the distillation-chamber-arrangement of the ruminants, to the refried-beans approach of the cute bunnies.

We lack a truly plant-friendly metabolism, although our dentition does favour it... but, it seems, our approach to plants is mainly to eat their babies... fruits and seeds, which are better suited to our mechanisms.

Our dentition doesn't really favour meat, although it is capable of making a layman's attempt, and our digestion balks at large quantities of just animal flesh.

We seem to (generally) require a more balanced approach... certainly in terms of vitamins, minerals, etc... which are hard to get ALL of, PURELY from either flora OR fauna.

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?

Nope, you can tell that humans are omnivores - we have teeth for eating meat, and without supermarkets we probably wouldn't be able to get all the nutrients we need from just plant matter.

Omnivores, though as far as I know, we're omnivores the way that racoons and rats are omnivores; meat isn't necessary, but if it's available, then we're fine with it.

Teeth aren't the only biological clue; look at human eyes. They're set facing forward, rather than to the sides. That puts us in the category of predator rather than prey...

Teeth aren't the only biological clue; look at human eyes. They're set facing forward, rather than to the sides. That puts us in the category of predator rather than prey...

Not necessarily.. we could just be prey that aren't especially well suited to the 'prey' niche.... but were fortunate enough to have another survival characteristic to offset it...

Humans evolved as herbivores with small amounts of meat as supplement and have, depending of time and location ranged from almost exclusively carnivores(Texans, the Inuit...) to exclusively plant eating.

PS: All primates have forward set eyes, it's an evolution for living in trees, not just for hunting. Can you imagine a monkey with no depth perception?

Humans evolved as herbivores with small amounts of meat as supplement and have, depending of time and location ranged from almost exclusively carnivores(Texans, the Inuit...) to exclusively plant eating.

PS: All primates have forward set eyes, it's an evolution for living in trees, not just for hunting. Can you imagine a monkey with no depth perception?

Quite a few primates eat meat. Maybe some of them evolved away their meat eating.

PS: All primates have forward set eyes, it's an evolution for living in trees, not just for hunting. Can you imagine a monkey with no depth perception?

Most birds also live in trees, and many of them have eyes on the sides of their heads. It doesn't seem to hurt them any...

we are currently omnivores. we could be total vegetarians with a little planning as many plants yield things like protein and fat,but who would want to? i know how bad modern meat is with all the radiation treatment,chemical preservatives,and hormone injected cows(and antibiotic overdose) but i love it too much.

evidence suggests that at one time(think neanderthals) our diet was about 80%
meat,so we could live as mostly carnivores if we had to for awhile,but evolution demands now that we need more plants in our diet than before,so we would have to get some veggies in there somewhere eventually. if you were trapped in the mountains during a blizzard for example and all you had was....meat. its been done before....

look at human eyes. They're set facing forward, rather than to the sides. That puts us in the category of predator rather than prey...
I knew that koalas were just fooling us with their leaf eating routine! They're just biding their time until we're completely off guard and then they'll drop from the trees and consume us all.

On a more serious note, no one has mentioned the fact that humans have had the ability to cook and manually process food over evolutionary time. We have a shorter and narrower digestive track than chimpanzes, who are our closest relatives. Chimpanzes mostly eat plants, but they also eat meat which is highly prized. (A lot of their meat comes in the form of insects.) Humans are capable of eating a lot meat and are adapted to cooking and prepareing food.

humanvores.(cannibals)


heresigned,
The Stoned British Navy of Crack Pottia

Well, we're certainly not fungivores, insectivores, foliavores, gumivores, or arborivores...

We're omnivores.

Nature shows us this, the fossil record shows us this. Did you know that you can actually figure out the foods more recent fossil finds have consumed? Neanderthals, for example, ate mostly meat, according to the analysis of the chemicals in their fossils.

Mnnn, Human Evo class. Delicious.

I will stare incredulously at anyone who genuinely believes that humans are not designed to be omnivores.

Come on, try me.

I will stare incredulously at anyone who genuinely believes that humans are not designed to be omnivores.

Come on, try me.

Alright then, I will. I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT HUMANS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO BE OMNIVORES!

Alright then, I will. I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT HUMANS WERE NOT DESIGNED TO BE OMNIVORES!

*incredulous stare* You're not serious, are you, CC?

Elch, I could never live like that.
That attitude caused death for thousands (well, few hundred at least...) of Norwegians who used to live in Greenland. When the climate became colder they still refused to eat enough fish and starved to death. You should eat what your surroundings can offer. (well most of us, and certainly all of us here in NS, don't have to be as adaptable...to be honest I certainly couldn't live like that either.)

Inuit tend to live that way... for the simple reason that nothing but meat is available, for the most time of the year no plants grow in the Arctic.
It is a difficult diet, but possible. Most vitamins can be obtained from meat, but I really have no clue where they would get their Vitamin C from...

Raw meat, has loads of vitamin C in it.... especially red meats (like Seal), which is one of their prime staples.... We don't see much of it in our normative diets, because we cook most of our meats (heat and light will break vitamin C down).

Two large aspects of our dietary needs point us as not being well suited to either herbivorous or carnivorous feeding.

1 - We cannot sustain ourselves off of vegetarion:

Humans require Vitamin B12, there is no natural source of B12 found in plants. We are capable of manufacturing B12, however, when intaking Betacaratine with saturated animal fats. This is why vegans have to intake B12 suppliments, or use "fortified" (that is, soaked in excess vitamins) grains with B12. There is not "natural" source for them, in their normal base of diet. It is clear we need B12 from animal sources, on a regular basis.

2 - We cannot be sustained completely off of animals:

Even amongst the relatively carnivorous Intiut, they require excess fiber in their diet (which they get from seaweed)... hard plant fiber, while not essential for nutrients, is a vital part of keeping our digestive track healthy. It is clear we are meant to be eating fiber-rich plant materials, on a regular basis.

Steak > Every other food

Debatable. The first human beings were hunter-gatherers. Their entire diet was most likely simply meat and whatever nuts and berries they could find. The diet of humans has evolved along with society. As humans began to cultivate the land, they began to adapt to a more agrarian diet. Some, however, seem to still be more well-suited to the hunter-gatherer diet.

actually, hunter-gatherer diet is roughly 60-90% plant based, except for cultures living in the arctic. and the first humans were almost exclusively foragers with only occassional hunted or scavenged meat.

actually, hunter-gatherer diet is roughly 60-90% plant based, except for cultures living in the arctic. and the first humans were almost exclusively foragers with only occassional hunted or scavenged meat.

Still, doesn't change the fact that meat is included on the diet. Therefor, by that definition, we are omnivores.

Wow I don't think i've seen a NS General poll with such clear-cut results!

Usually, if a conservative answers that the sky is blue, a liberal will answer that it's red. (And vice versa.)

Neanderthals, for example, ate mostly meat, according to the analysis of the chemicals in their fossils.

mmm, ice age megafauna.

you don't happen to have the numbers for probable diet composition by %, do you? i've never seen any for neandertals, and it would be interesting to compare them to modern arctic cultures.

I will stare incredulously at anyone who genuinely believes that humans are not designed to be omnivores.

Come on, try me.

I genuinely do not believe humans were designed at all :P
That said, we are omnivores. Though I doubt many people can actually eat real meat without getting sick- fresh from the animal, raw, blood not congealed yet..
Face it people, we are definately not carnivores like the mighty lion, but stealers of spoils like vultures...

Omnivores. Any PETA supporters will be shot.


I'm a PETA supporter,what the hell is wrong with exposing the cruel truth of animal genocide.And as for this poll,our digestif system was not made to cosume large quantities of meat, therefore i suggest herbivorism.

actually, hunter-gatherer diet is roughly 60-90% plant based, except for cultures living in the arctic. and the first humans were almost exclusively foragers with only occassional hunted or scavenged meat.

However, it is not based on grains. The plants are, as I said, more of the nut and berry variety. Grains require processing to be of any use.

Still, doesn't change the fact that meat is included on the diet. Therefor, by that definition, we are omnivores.

didn't say we aren't. probably the only true herbivores in semi-recent human evolution are the robust australopithecines.

I'm a PETA supporter,what the hell is wrong with exposing the cruel truth of animal genocide.And as for this poll,our digestif system was not made to cosume large quantities of meat, therefore i suggest herbivorism.
I actually read an interesting article that postulated that the switch in primates from exclusive vegetarian diets to the inclusion of meat is what caused the evolution of societies. Vegetarian primates, it noted, tended to be far less social than their meat eating brethren, therefore the increased socialization required to catch and eat meat led to stronger animal societies and the eventual evolution of sentience...

Anyway, I am a PETA person too - People Eating Tasty Animals.

I'm a PETA supporter,what the hell is wrong with exposing the cruel truth of animal genocide.

True that. Our bodies are suited to eat 'meat', and even requires certain substances not naturally found outside this meat. But... we can make those substances artificially. And we have the capacity to make moral choices. So we do not need to obey natures "design" if we choose differently. For instance when we feel sorry for animals - like PETA says it does.

Teeth aren't the only biological clue; look at human eyes. They're set facing forward, rather than to the sides. That puts us in the category of predator rather than prey...

In the early stages of foetus development, the eyes are actually set facing to the side like a herbivore, and move forward further into the development, I think the reason our eyes moved forward was partially defense, partially for hunting/depth perception...

I'm a PETA supporter,what the hell is wrong with exposing the cruel truth of animal genocide.And as for this poll,our digestif system was not made to cosume large quantities of meat, therefore i suggest herbivorism.


Granted our system is not designed for large quantities of meat, such as a lion's or cheetah's system. However, we do require nutrients that are found only in meat, or synthetically produced. I don't like synthetically produced, that's why I raise my own meat (cows, pigs, chickens, rabbits). I also grow veggies, and I support the omnivore vote.

Our bodies aren't designed to eat leafs and grasses either. Wheat required mutations and then processing to make edible. People who think we're herbivores are just deluded.

If people were herbivores, I could hire gardners by offering free food and having them mow my lawn with their teeth.

Definitely omnivores.

And as far as the predator/prey argument goes.... While all the remarks about eye placement and dentition are good proof that we are predators, the human brain is probably the best. Although we do not posess large teeth and claws like many other predators, our ability to make tools and develop hunting techniques puts us in the predator domain. You don't need a big brain to be prey - look at just about every hooved animal.

Also, the neanderthal arguments are bogus. We evolved parallel to neanderthals, and our success (due to bigger brains, and more complex societies) drove them to extinction.

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?
This topic is worthy of a debate? wtf? Ok tell me what braught this across, why you think theres any question on the matter.

This topic is worthy of a debate? wtf?

Not really. What is worthy of debate is the question "does it matter ?". Eating animals in this age of artificially created foodsupplements is not a necessity; it is a moral choice. And moral choices can be "unnatural". That is what distinguishes them from instincts.

I genuinely do not believe humans were designed at all :P
That said, we are omnivores. Though I doubt many people can actually eat real meat without getting sick- fresh from the animal, raw, blood not congealed yet..
Face it people, we are definately not carnivores like the mighty lion, but stealers of spoils like vultures...


I think its a matter of taste. I often eat real meat, fresh from the animal. I like the taste of meat. I dont like the taste of processed meat that is thoroughly cooked. You can digest it-its more a question of wether or not it appeals to you.

This topic is worthy of a debate? wtf? Ok tell me what braught this across, why you think theres any question on the matter.

Someone posed the assertion that humans are herbivorous elsewhere. Up til then I didn't think there was much question on the matter either. But then, there are at least a half dozen or so who voted "herbivores" in this poll...

If we don't debate these things now, the ignorant will force us to debate everything later, including whether the Earth is flat or if Elvis is really dead.

If we don't debate these things now, the ignorant will force us to debate everything later, including whether the Earth is flat or if Elvis is really dead.

Of course the Earth is flat; that's how Elvis lives secretly on the other side of it, with JFK and Tupac Shakur so that they can communicate privately with all the visiting aliens.

Of course the Earth is flat; that's how Elvis lives secretly on the other side of it, with JFK and Tupac Shakur so that they can communicate privately with all the visiting aliens.
(1) Earth=cubed
(2) Elvis lives
(3) Tupac is alive, too.
(4) Aliens are cool!

Not really. What is worthy of debate is the question "does it matter ?". Eating animals in this age of artificially created foodsupplements is not a necessity; it is a moral choice. And moral choices can be "unnatural". That is what distinguishes them from instincts.

But, why buy hundreds of food supplements, and carefully scour the vegetation for all the nutrients you need (like some of the amino acids that are almost unaccounted in vegetarian foods), when there is already a natural alternative?

And one that doesn't immediately further line the pockets of the pharmacy?

Definitely omnivores.

And as far as the predator/prey argument goes.... While all the remarks about eye placement and dentition are good proof that we are predators, the human brain is probably the best. Although we do not posess large teeth and claws like many other predators, our ability to make tools and develop hunting techniques puts us in the predator domain. You don't need a big brain to be prey - look at just about every hooved animal.

Also, the neanderthal arguments are bogus. We evolved parallel to neanderthals, and our success (due to bigger brains, and more complex societies) drove them to extinction.

Actually, THEY had bigger brains.

However, they were bigger in the wrong areas, and most likely were large for the sake of insulation rather than function.

We're herbivores. The only meat we ever ate for millions of years was marrow. Before we had tools how did you expect us to go around getting meat? A house cat stood a better chance than us.

Animal-based diets are not natural or healthier then plant-based ones. You can get all the nutrients you get from animals from plants, the American diet is just so screwed that we don't know how.

1) Chimps aren't just eating marrow.

2) Tool use cannot be removed from human evolution.

3) Proper diets should be plant-based, yes. But they're set up to include good chunks of meat.

1. Then what are they eating? Not cows.

2. Tool use is relatively new, for millions of years we just used our hands.

3. Why do you need meat?

Note that I'm not a vegeterian.

Does it really matter whether humans are biologically herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores? Despite all bears being classified as carnivores the brown bear eats plant matter almost exclusively and the panda bear diet is 99% bamboo. It seems that the shape of your teeth really doesnt matter.

1. Then what are they eating? Not cows.

2. Tool use is relatively new, for millions of years we just used our hands.

3. Why do you need meat?

Note that I'm not a vegeterian.

Take a fricking Human Evolution course.

Or you could give 3 quick responses.

Two large aspects of our dietary needs point us as not being well suited to either herbivorous or carnivorous feeding.

1 - We cannot sustain ourselves off of vegetarion:

Humans require Vitamin B12, there is no natural source of B12 found in plants. We are capable of manufacturing B12, however, when intaking Betacaratine with saturated animal fats. This is why vegans have to intake B12 suppliments, or use "fortified" (that is, soaked in excess vitamins) grains with B12. There is not "natural" source for them, in their normal base of diet. It is clear we need B12 from animal sources, on a regular basis.

2 - We cannot be sustained completely off of animals:

Even amongst the relatively carnivorous Intiut, they require excess fiber in their diet (which they get from seaweed)... hard plant fiber, while not essential for nutrients, is a vital part of keeping our digestive track healthy. It is clear we are meant to be eating fiber-rich plant materials, on a regular basis.


...What I was going to say exactly! As a vegan I only need to supplement my diet in the way of B12 (which makes us humans "obligate omnivores".) All of my other nutrients come from a carefully planned plant based diet :)

Bleh.

1) Varies significantly. Considering the modern chimp diet, we probably ate monkies when were were back in the austrolopithecine stage. By the time we get to the various homo groups, you have a much wider range of prey, considering homo erectus stretched from Africa to Asia. It's like asking "So, what kind of food to humans eat today?" Gee, where do you want to start? Generally, if it died, and nothing else got there first, we ate it, whether or not we killed it ourselves. The cow argument is pointless. Cows as we know them today DID NOT EXIST until modern cultures bred them in, what was it, Egypt?

2) Tools that wouldn't dissolve are relatively new. You don't find too many fossilized chimp termite grass strings, either. Nor is it that easy to identify a pounding stone or log that chimps use TODAY, much less something that's been sitting around for millions of years. Stone tends to last better over millions of years... and stone that's been clearly struck to create flakes is much easier to identify than slamming rocks. Here, this is more or less the kind of info that was in my Human Evo course: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology_Oldowan
We even have some yummy cannibalism early in our history, which I can hunt down if its at all useful. Mmnn, ergaster.

3) I need neither meat nor plant. I choose to let evolution speak through my intestinal tract. We could just pull a Jetsons and make everything we need in a lab, but then I'd sooner eat you.

...What I was going to say exactly! As a vegan I only need to supplement my diet in the way of B12 (which makes us humans "obligate omnivores".) All of my other nutrients come from a carefully planned plant based diet :)

God that sounds boring. But hey, more power to ya.

Evolutionarily we are omnivores; however, I believe it's not healthy to eat as much meat as at least the American culture tends to. Then again there are a lot of things wrong with the American diet so meat might not be the main problem. However, it's obvious that we can live as exclusive herbivores, but not as exclusive carnivores. Therefore, we're on the herbivorous side of omnivorism.

I believe you can get B12 from bone marrow.

1) Varies significantly. Considering the modern chimp diet, we probably ate monkies when were were back in the austrolopithecine stage. By the time we get to the various homo groups, you have a much wider range of prey, considering homo erectus stretched from Africa to Asia. It's like asking "So, what kind of food to humans eat today?" Gee, where do you want to start? Generally, if it died, and nothing else got there first, we ate it, whether or not we killed it ourselves. The cow argument is pointless. Cows as we know them today DID NOT EXIST until modern cultures bred them in, what was it, Egypt?

2) Tools that wouldn't dissolve are relatively new. You don't find too many fossilized chimp termite grass strings, either. Nor is it that easy to identify a pounding stone or log that chimps use TODAY, much less something that's been sitting around for millions of years. Stone tends to last better over millions of years... and stone that's been clearly struck to create flakes is much easier to identify than slamming rocks. Here, this is more or less the kind of info that was in my Human Evo course: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology_Oldowan
We even have some yummy cannibalism early in our history, which I can hunt down if its at all useful. Mmnn, ergaster.

3) I need neither meat nor plant. I choose to let evolution speak through my intestinal tract. We could just pull a Jetsons and make everything we need in a lab, but then I'd sooner eat you.
1. How did we eat monkeys? They seem like to big of a match for us. Anyway, you're saying that we cold be scavengers? I agree with that, but usually the predators left everything but the bone marrow, which is what I've already said we ate. If we just ate meat we killed, it would be pretty hard to get it with our bare hands. I know there weren't cows back then, my point is that the meat we eat today is not natural for our diet.

2. Early stages of humans didn't use tools, or else we would've been way farther then we are today. Later on we could've used more complex stuff, but nothing like the cavemen ages.

3. I eat whatever I want too, but is there really a reason for meat? Yeah, B12, but try some bone marrow.

...you're a city kid, eh?

Chimps get monkies.

Baboons smack down deer.

You don't think what was basically a bipedal chimp could do what a chimp could do?

...And it's fairly rare for a predator to clean off every single scrap of meat... that's only after several animals have gone after it...

...and EVERY stage of humans (that is, homo) had tools. EVERY.

Read the damned article.

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?
Humans ( and most of the great apes, BTW ) developed omnivorous eating habits as an adaptation to alternating periods of feast and famine. Being able to eat virtually anything not posionous or overly cellulose-based gave humans a significant evolutionary advantage.

1. Then what are they eating? Not cows.

Actually, they are known to hunt down and eat monkeys, in Gombe, the Red Colobus monkey accounts for 3% of the chimpanzee diet.


2. Tool use is relatively new, for millions of years we just used our hands.

Tool use is approximately 2.5 million years old in hominid evolution, beginning with the australopithecine. Also, "social0hunting" predates tool use, and even chimpanzees demonstrate social-hunting in the Gombe.


3. Why do you need meat?

Primarily, Vitamin B12. There is no "plant-based" source of B12 alone. Except remanufacture of Betacaratine with animal fat in the human body. That is why vegans must injest B12 suppliments, or suppliment their diet with "fortified" grains (that is grains which have been infused with vitamin suppliments).

Someone living on a purely "vega" diet, with no animal products, living off purely "natural" foods, unsumplimented with artificially produced B12 (Cobalamin), will, as their bodily reserves are depeleted, suffer anemia, later entering hematological disorders, suffering strokes, and eventually enter states of neurosis, culminating in dimentia just before death.

B12 is required by our system in the replication of DNA. Without it, we start breaking down at the genetic level. The only "natural" source of B12, is animal matter, with the highest concentrations in the marrow, and liver; It can also be obtained by the intake of betacaratine in the presence of saturated animal fats, which our digestive system is capable of processing into Cobalamin (B12).

There is no such thing as a "natural" B12 source from plants alone.


Note that I'm not a vegeterian.

Neither am I, I'm an omnivore.

Humans are scientifically proven to be ominvores, no? Just because humans CAN survive without meat (with a lot of artificial/processed supplements) doesn't mean that was the way we were biologically designed. I will freely admit, however, that the average person in a civilised Western nation probably eats vastly larger amounts of meat than what "nature intended"...

Humans are scientifically proven to be herbivores, no? Just because humans CAN survive without meat (with a lot of artificial/processed supplements) doesn't mean that was the way we were biologically designed. I will freely admit, however, that the average person in a civilised Western nation probably eats vastly larger amounts of meat than what "nature intended"...

We are scientifically prooven to be omnivores, not herbivores. Herbivorous animals can survive on purely plant based diets. Humans can't. (We can when supplimented with technology, but that's not an issue of our naturally developed biochemistry).

We are scientifically prooven to be omnivores, not herbivores. Herbivorous animals can survive on purely plant based diets. Humans can't. (We can when supplimented with technology, but that's not an issue of our naturally developed biochemistry).
That's exactly what he(she?) wrote...

or meant anyway.

Herbivorous animals can survive on purely plant based diets. Humans can't. (We can when supplimented with technology, but that's not an issue of our naturally developed biochemistry).

And why is the naturally developed biochemistry relevant ;) ? Humans after all do many things they are not biologically meant to do. Wear clothes. Use a knife and fork when eating. Listen to priests in churches. All very unnatural, yet we can choose to. As we can choose not to eat meat yet stay healthy ;)

And why is the naturally developed biochemistry relevant ;) ? Humans after all do many things they are not biologically meant to do. Wear clothes. Use a knife and fork when eating. Listen to priests in churches. All very unnatural, yet we can choose to. As we can choose not to eat meat yet stay healthy ;)

I can honestly say, I have never seen a healthy looking vegetarian.

And why is the naturally developed biochemistry relevant ;) ? Humans after all do many things they are not biologically meant to do. Wear clothes. Use a knife and fork when eating. Listen to priests in churches. All very unnatural, yet we can choose to. As we can choose not to eat meat yet stay healthy ;)

Biochemistry is the basic part of classification of a species based on dietary needs (herbivorous, carnivorous, omnivorous), so it does have bearing on the issue at hand, as in "what classification" do we as humans fit under.

We are devloped as, and rely upon a varied diet from multiple food-type sources (omnivorous). Animal and Plant based.

Even though we can process large ammounts of animal matter for consumption by cows, does not make cows "naturally carnivores", anymore than massive processing of plant matter for human consumption makes us "natural herbivores"... Herbivorous, Carnivorous (Insectivorous), Omnivorous classifications are based upon nutricional requirements, and where such nutrician can be derived from in natural diets.

We are therefore natural omnivores (along with the majority of the other primates and monkeys on this planet), requiring nutrients which are naturally derived from both planet and animal matter.

Whether we can live off of planet materials (supplimented by artificially created oblative vitamins) at present, has no bearing on our dietary classification as a species, which is omnivorous.

Most Feline manufactured food is produced by supplimenting corn or other grains; are you going to argue that cats are therefore herbivores? Because, under your logic they are.... And Cattle are omnivores, since animal based products are processed for their consumption in feed...

We are scientifically prooven to be omnivores, not herbivores. Herbivorous animals can survive on purely plant based diets. Humans can't. (We can when supplimented with technology, but that's not an issue of our naturally developed biochemistry).
oops - what a foulup. I actually meant omnivores. Boy is my face red.

I can honestly say, I have never seen a healthy looking vegetarian.
You can tell people's diet by just looking at them? You have other superpowers?

Biochemistry is the basic part of classification of a species based on dietary needs (herbivorous, carnivorous, omnivorous), so it does have bearing on the issue at hand, as in "what classification" do we as humans fit under.

No - it is only relevant to determine what our natural classification would be. What we actually consume however is no longer dictated by this evolutionary aspect of ourselves.
Still means humans as a species are omnivores though. Just for a different reason. Unless you are looking at what is necessary to eat - in which case an argument for herbivores could be made.

Most Feline manufactured food is produced by supplimenting corn or other grains; are you going to argue that cats are therefore herbivores?
If they *only* eat grains: yes. They would not be natural herbivores though.

And Cattle are omnivores, since animal based products are processed for their consumption in feed...
Correct. Again: not natural though ;)

20,000 years ago. On the Plains of glacial Europe. People who had names like soupidoo and igrotallo would hunt for mega fauna, so their wives could make stew.

The men would leave the cave at 7.20am every tuesday and would not return for 4 days. during this time, they would track large animals in the cold cold climate. stopping at around 8pm, to eat the salad of baby leaves, seeds and fruits that their wives had made for them. after a few days they would catch up to the large animals, and kill them. After killing them they would sing a little song. Ombaglooga sola mana feefi yucka chooga tchucka. Which roughly translates as, "you may be a big bastard mammoth, but we've got spears". Then they'd go home, and make a dinner which was exactly 40% meat based.

It is beyond contention that this is what happened 20,000 years ago. scientist can proove it.

However by 18,000 years ago it was to cold, and people stopped singing, cos their lips were numb, they decided instesd to make meals that were exactly 60% meat based.

This is confusing. since science can proove without question, what we did in the past, and how we evolved. The fact that our diets varied so much, means that any diet we eat is unnatural, or natural, or whatever.

I think I'll just stick to eating plenty of fruit and veg, and also some nuts, seeds, grains, meat, fish, eggs and dairy (contriversial one dairy, but I don't care)

No - it is only relevant to determine what our natural classification would be. What we actually consume however is no longer dictated by this evolutionary aspect of ourselves.
Still means humans as a species are omnivores though. Just for a different reason. Unless you are looking at what is necessary to eat - in which case an argument for herbivores could be made.


If they *only* eat grains: yes. They would not be natural herbivores though.


Correct. Again: not natural though ;)

Then why are you arguing? :P We're omnivores, by nature... In agreement (I could care less, personally, what people choose to eat, that's thanks to technological advancement, and is a personal matter of the individual).

Or are you arguing merely because we haven't actually had any of the "we're carnivores"/"we're herbivores" (or even the "other-vores", whatever they meant in voting) have not shown their head to justify their position in argument?

humans are currently omnivores yes,but we could adapt to either solitary diet if the environment required it. this is why we learned how to farm. before planting crops,we did MUCH hunting of animals and ate MOSTLY meat. all animals on the earth eat vegetation,even the carnivores. ever seen your dog eat grass? my cat used to love celery.


as for the tools arguement,i think some people need to review their anthropology books. humans went through several stages of evolution and adaptation. tools did not start being used until rather recently in human history. homosapiens have been around for about 350,000 years. that was a long time before planting and community. before that there was homoerectus,and they were around for about 1,500,000 years. before that,the historians,biologists,and anthropologists disagree on how long our predecessors were here. humans(or their predecessors)have not used tools for millions of years,unless you count throwing a rock at a tiger using a tool. monkies can do that now,but they cant design a flute or a chevy. tool use only began when there was a combination of evolved human brains and the need for tools. before that,we attacked like monkies do,with feet,hands,and teeth.

(*THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE---SIXTH EDITION---VOLUME ONE...BY CHAMBERS,GREW,HERLIHY,RABB,AND WOLOCH)

its a good read if you are into ancient history...enjoy

I did for a while. peanut butter-like dumps and always running out of floss

Dang, man, some of us are trying to look forward to lunch! hehe

humans are currently omnivores yes,but we could adapt to either solitary diet if the environment required it. this is why we learned how to farm. before planting crops,we did MUCH hunting of animals and ate MOSTLY meat. all animals on the earth eat vegetation,even the carnivores. ever seen your dog eat grass? my cat used to love celery.


as for the tools arguement,i think some people need to review their anthropology books. humans went through several stages of evolution and adaptation. tools did not start being used until rather recently in human history. homosapiens have been around for about 350,000 years. that was a long time before planting and community. before that there was homoerectus,and they were around for about 1,500,000 years. before that,the historians,biologists,and anthropologists disagree on how long our predecessors were here. humans(or their predecessors)have not used tools for millions of years,unless you count throwing a rock at a tiger using a tool. monkies can do that now,but they cant design a flute or a chevy. tool use only began when there was a combination of evolved human brains and the need for tools. before that,we attacked like monkies do,with feet,hands,and teeth.

(*THE WESTERN EXPERIENCE---SIXTH EDITION---VOLUME ONE...BY CHAMBERS,GREW,HERLIHY,RABB,AND WOLOCH)

its a good read if you are into ancient history...enjoy

As already stated, non-arctic hunter-gatherers have a diet which is mostly plant based.

The earliest tool use is associated with the lower palaeolithic. The earliest unambiguous anthropogenically modified stone tools date to around 2.5 million years ago. It has yet to be established whether the makers of these were gracile australopithecines, or members of the genus Homo. (perhaps Homo Habilis, although there is also controversy surrounding whether habilis is a Homo or a gracile autralopithecine).

I'm not sure if this is what you said, I didn't really understand what you wrote!

Or are you arguing merely because we haven't actually had any of the "we're carnivores"/"we're herbivores" (or even the "other-vores", whatever they meant in voting) have not shown their head to justify their position in argument?

That is one reason, yes. I always try to see the others point of view - and then dismiss it if I disagree with it. It also helps me to actually formulate my own position better.
But the main reason is that several people in this thread already have made comments like "we're omnivores - so screw PETA". I am trying to point out that "being natural omnivores" does not mean we must eat meat in this age.

And as a sideeffect I noticed that the way words like "omnivore". "herbivore" etc. are used is not consistent. We have definitions based on:
a. What humanity is based on natural evolution (omnivores)
b. What humanity must eat to survive (herbivores with artificial b12 or carnivores like the Inuit)
c. What humanity chooses to be/actually eats (omnivores)
d. What humanity can eat (omnivores)

d. is not really useful, since then cows and cats would be omnivores too. The others however all seem quite valid.

I believe you can get B12 from bone marrow.


1. How did we eat monkeys? They seem like to big of a match for us. Anyway, you're saying that we cold be scavengers? I agree with that, but usually the predators left everything but the bone marrow, which is what I've already said we ate. If we just ate meat we killed, it would be pretty hard to get it with our bare hands. I know there weren't cows back then, my point is that the meat we eat today is not natural for our diet.

2. Early stages of humans didn't use tools, or else we would've been way farther then we are today. Later on we could've used more complex stuff, but nothing like the cavemen ages.


It wouldn't take Australopithecus too long to lay the smackdown on a monkey, especially in a group. Even our closer ancestors were more heavily muscled, by the time we had slimmed down we could already swing sticks, and soon we learned how effective the pointy stick was.

Also, the cow had yet to be invented, it's ancestors were rather fearsome. Homo erectus however had already mastered the pointy stick. H. ergaster had even more advanced tools of death, but it is unknown which of these species is more closely related to modern man. That said, we had tools of some nature all along.

I recently came across this idea. And I hate it. But that aside, whats your view on the human diet?


Herbs? What Herbs? The Magic variety?

I can honestly say, I have never seen a healthy looking vegetarian.

Ya, but people suck at judging health based on looks. That's why we use phrases like "healthy appitite" for 'eats way to fucking much' and "healthy tan" for 'perpetually suffering from low level radiation burns.'

And on that tool use and clothes wearing thing.
a) there are plenty of non-vegetarian things we can eat without tools or very much hunting skill. Shellfish, eggs, bugs, frogs, slow moving reptiles. With practice humans can even kill several varieties of small mammals with their bare hands.

b) Of course, we've had tool use for millions of years so it's perfectly natural anyway. Could humans have ever spread out from Africa without clothing? And the fact that there is such phenotypic variety in the world shows that there has been some evolution since clothes were invented, i.e. it is now unnatural not to wear clothes.

That is one reason, yes. I always try to see the others point of view - and then dismiss it if I disagree with it. It also helps me to actually formulate my own position better.
But the main reason is that several people in this thread already have made comments like "we're omnivores - so screw PETA". I am trying to point out that "being natural omnivores" does not mean we must eat meat in this age.

And as a sideeffect I noticed that the way words like "omnivore". "herbivore" etc. are used is not consistent. We have definitions based on:
a. What humanity is based on natural evolution (omnivores)
b. What humanity must eat to survive (herbivores with artificial b12 or carnivores like the Inuit)
c. What humanity chooses to be/actually eats (omnivores)
d. What humanity can eat (omnivores)

d. is not really useful, since then cows and cats would be omnivores too. The others however all seem quite valid.

Yeah, I don't see a reason we "must eat meat" if it can be avoided through technology (thus making it an individual decision).

Classification is based on natural sources of nutrients required by our bodies.

Thus, naturally, as one person pointed out, we are "oblative omnivores"... Requiring nutrients aquired from both plant and animal matter... More specifically, nuts, fruits, and some animal materials (organs, fat and bone marrow)... With our high Vitamin C requirements, it is a definite we need to intake large ammounts of fruits and/or certain raw meats (as part of our evolutionary devopment)... It is also a sure thing we have "evolved away from" the ability to eat much raw fiber (from the result of our atrophied appendix).

So, my argument as omnivorous, is based upon, if all of our fancy technology were to become useless... What would we need to eat to survive... Since we could not survive by living off of plant materials alone, for very long, without becomming ranting senile fools, due to B12 deficiency induded neurosis... We would need to eat some animals as well...

However, we are at present presented with options, since many of the necessary chemicals lacking in plant materials, can be synthesized for consumption. Eating a very fruitivorous and herbivorous diet is possible.

We are, however, adapted as omnivores... and share all the character traits of other omnivorous species (like chimpanzees) As well as noting that our closest Ape relative is also omnivorous (the Chimpanzee).

Being omnivore means you're mostly a animal of needs... Capable of deriving sustainance from most of the world around you. Very Hunter/Gatherer....

However, the "we're omnivores - Screw PETA" is a valid epiteth, in their defense. PETA is not exactly a reputable organization (being officially classified as a Terrorist Organization, for support of ALF and ELF)... And does pose alot of "questionable" science towards trying to justify humans as "natural herbivores"... Generally relying on digestive track features, pitting herbivorous aspects against carnivorous aspects, to proove we're not carnovores; and then use such proof as justifyication that we're herbivores...

(Which would be the same as someone showing that my ideologies are not "Republican" and therefore I must be a Democrat; when I'm actually a Libertarian)... So their message is a proper epiteth upon the PETA organization.

tools did not start being used until rather recently in human history.

both chimpanzees and orangutans make and use tools. for chimps, the most basic one just involves them selecting a good rock for cracking open nuts and such. they don't modify them, but they do have to select out ones that will make the best hammers. the termite fishing tool kits do involve modification though - and at least in some groups, multiple different tools are used to do different jobs in the process. orangs use a similar tool kit specialized to their habitat - in addition to termites, they also use modified sticks to fish for honey. gorillas have not been observed using tools in the wild, but that doesn't mean they don't. we do know that they certainly have the capacity to do so - captive apes of every speices are ridiculously good at using pretty much any tool once they've been shown how.

i'd wager quite a lot that the last common ancestor of all of the modern great apes used tools too.

PETA is not exactly a reputable organization (being officially classified as a Terrorist Organization, for support of ALF and ELF)...

by who?

Yeah, I don't see a reason we "must eat meat"...

Bacon.

I rest my case.

gorillas have not been observed using tools in the wild, but that doesn't mean they don't.

alternatively, they might have just given up tool use as it is unnecessary for their eating habits. their world is essentially made up entirely of food, and it doesn't exactly require the use of tools to get at it.

by who?

The FBI, since 1993... And PETA's involvement with the eco-terrorist groups ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF (Earth Liberation Front).

The FBI, since 1993... And PETA's involvement with the eco-terrorist groups ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF (Earth Liberation Front).

hah!

dude, they are a tax-exempt non-profit organization. that's a totally different list.

where did you hear otherwise?