PDA

View Full Version : Humans: Carnivorous?


Weave
10-03-2007, 06:19 PM
Do humans naturally eat meat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4N8DITWAWE)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

I don't wholly agree that eating meat is completely unnatural. I believe it as something to fall back on possibly. However, the acceptance of HOW natural it is, is something I disagree stongly about. I'd say that we are bourderline Omnivorous/Herbivore.
So:
How natural is eating meat?

Web Rider
10-03-2007, 06:49 PM
wait wait....didn't this get posted here already?

Seen it, debunked it, ain't worth doing it again.

Rev7
10-03-2007, 06:50 PM
I honestly don't think that one can get protien from vegatables and cheeses. Me I personaly think that it is in the human nature to eat meat.

Weave
10-03-2007, 07:13 PM
@ Web Rider - Has this topic already been touched on before? If so... could you give me the link to that other topic (if one exists). Or are you implying that it's not worth discussing? No trying to be agressive or anything... just wondering. :)

@Rev7 - I happen to get all my protein. Besides, it's the essential amino acids that are important. I've already said that soy, nuts, beans, and rice are fine. Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency.
As for human nature... I disagree that eating meat is by any means apart of human nature. However, I do agree that part of our abstract thinking is to look for more pleasurable things... which we indulge in by consuming meat. Like the flic said though... cigarettes are the same way. Plus, do you feed a baby meat? No... you feed it milk, carrots, apple sauce, and peas. Eventually... you begin to give it very small amunts of meat so that the child develops a tolerance to it, like poison for example.

Totenkopf
10-03-2007, 07:19 PM
I vote for omnivore. And if meat be poison......please let me kill myself with a nice piece of prime rib.....rare preferably, but med rare will do fine. ;)

mimartin
10-03-2007, 07:19 PM
I am really going to believe a talking pig telling me not to eat meat. Makes as much sense as a cow telling me to eat more chicken.

Iím sorry but the argument that Carl Lewis was a vegetarian and could kick anyoneís butt is insane. Carl Lewis couldn't kick his way out of a paper bag.

Therefore, to answer the question, we are both!

Achilles
10-03-2007, 07:23 PM
Without watching the clip (blocked from work), I will submit that yes, humans did naturally become carnivorous. Our biology has evolved for both consumption of meat and plants. Some evidences suggests that adapting meat to our diet was a necessary step for brain development. Et cetera, et cetera.

I understand that it is becoming popular to raise moral questions about eating meat and our increased understanding of nutrition has made it possible to live without meat, but that does not magically invalidate its involvement in our evolution as a species.

And regarding feeding babies meat: I suspect it has nothing to do with building up their tolerance to a poison and everything to do with their not having teeth :rolleyes:

EDIT: One last thing I forgot to mention:

Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency. Yes, in modern humans, with mostly sedentary lifestyles and fatty meats that come from factory-farmed animals. Early humans however were highly active and ate lean meats that came from highly active animals. So it almost seems like we're almost dealing with two entirely different sets of questions, wouldn't you agree?

Weave
10-03-2007, 07:32 PM
I vote for omnivore. And if meat be poison......please let me kill myself with a nice piece of prime rib.....rare preferably, but med rare will do fine. ;)

In the middle ages, kings used to take small amounts of poison and increase those doses as their tolerance to the poison fortified. Same goes with meat. You don't give a baby a prime rib... it's going to throw up uncontrollably. You give it small doses of meat when the child's young. Then you build and build until he/she has a tolerance. It also explains why people lose their tolerance to meat after not eating it for a long while.

Iím sorry but the argument that Carl Lewis was a vegetarian and could kick anyoneís butt is insane. Carl Lewis couldn't kick his way out of a paper bag.

Nah... you're probably right... but Jack La'Lane (sp?) definitely could kick your @$$. :p

And regarding feeding babies meat: I suspect it has nothing to do with building up their tolerance to a poison and everything to do with their not having teeth

Well... you can grind up some meat in a food procesor and it'd have the same texture as peas. ;)
The baby would still get sick.

Hallucination
10-03-2007, 07:36 PM
Plus, the number one cause of food related death is heart failure or stroke... caused by meat and fatty foods... not protein deficiency.
I'm fairly certain it's caused by high amounts of cholesterol and a lack of exercise. I'm 100% sure humans are meant to move a little more than 1 km a day.

As for the video, it would be better if it included human-herbivore comparisons, as well as a few human-omnivore comparisons (if I remember correctly, I eat a tomato or two every so often). I think it would have been interesting to follow up the wolf digestive system-human digestive system comparison with a human digestive system-cow digestive system, since cows happen to have four stomach chambers and we have one.

I also think (this could just be me) that the video was slightly biased. And the voice actor for the pig needs to DIAF.

Achilles
10-03-2007, 07:38 PM
Well... you can grind up some meat in a food procesor and it'd have the same texture as peas. ;)
The baby would still get sick.All that tells me is that Baby's digestive system probably doesn't develop sufficiently to handle meat until Baby has teeth to chew it with anyway. :)

Weave
10-03-2007, 07:51 PM
Yes, in modern humans, with mostly sedentary lifestyles and fatty meats that come from factory-farmed animals. Early humans however were highly active and ate lean meats that came from highly active animals. So it almost seems like we're almost dealing with two entirely different sets of questions, wouldn't you agree?

This was just to support my arguement on: Do Vegetarians get enough protein. :)
Basically... I was just saying that vegetarians do. As for lean meat, that raises the question: Do we need to slaughter so many animals whom have lots of fat?
Here's another flic... but let's move on after this cause it's off-topic.

Plus, let me change my first post, so that it narrows this debate down a little more narrowly.

As for meat adding to the development of the brain and abstract thinking: It doesn't explain why other primates haven't developed such traits after so long. Plus, too much meat leads to brain degeneracy. I do agree that lean red meat DOES benefit someone... but the fact that hardly anyone actually goes out and eats specifically lean red meat does discredit the whole point of eating meat IMO.

I also think (this could just be me) that the video was slightly biased. And the voice actor for the pig needs to DIAF.

Of course it's biased, it's supposed to be persuasive. There isn't a single document that isn't at least somewhat biased.

As for the voice acting: :lol:

All that tells me is that Baby's digestive system probably doesn't develop sufficiently to handle meat until Baby has teeth to chew it with anyway

True. But let's try it on a completely vegie-raised baby and see.
If you give a non-anemic, Johova Witness child some meat... it's definitely going to be in the bathroom all day long. Simply, the kid has no tolerance. You can't give me meat or I'll throw up. Mainly because I've lost my tolerance to it... and my digestive track is fully developed.

mimartin
10-03-2007, 07:51 PM
Another problem with the video is Chimpanzees are pictured as herbivores, but like us, they are omnivores.

Damn Achilles already got my second point about difference between game and farmed raised animals.

Weave I admire you for having the will power to not eat meat and Iím all for not being cruel to animals. I also support conservation of animals, both with my vote and with my pocketbook. My grandparent taught me if I killed the animal that I must use the animal. Meaning I have to eat or use all the parts the parts possible. Hence, I hunt but rarely kill. Usually carry only a camera instead of a gun.

Weave
10-03-2007, 07:56 PM
Weave I admire you for having the will power to not eat meat and Iím all for not being cruel to animals. I also support conservation of animals, both with my vote and with my pocketbook. My grandparent taught me if I killed the animal that I must use the animal. Meaning I have to eat or use all the parts the parts possible. Hence, I hunt but rarely kill. Usually carry only a camera instead of a gun.

As for the chimp thing... I know... I was chastizing the video because of that one :lol:

As for the hunting... it's good you use the whole animal and not waste it. That's also a problem with killing animals now-a-days... we completely waste most of them and just end up killing more animals as a result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

The Narrator is super dramatic though.

Jae Onasi
10-03-2007, 08:11 PM
Oh, Rev7, you certainly can get proteins from vegetables and cheeses. For those who don't already know, a protein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) is a long chain of amino acids, and there are 20 amino acids. Our bodies can make 11 of these amino acids. The other 9 essential amino acids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acids) cannot be made by our bodies--we have to ingest those somehow, normally by eating food.

In terms of food and protein content (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002467.htm), any food that has all 9 of the essential amino acids is called a complete protein, and anything that has some but not all of the 9 essential amino acids is an incomplete protein. Foods such as meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk, cheese, and soy are all complete proteins. Grains (corn, wheat, oatmeal), legumes (like lentils, kidney beans, black beans, navy beans, quinoa, etc.), nuts, and seeds are all incomplete proteins, but if you eat a variety of these different incomplete proteins, you'll end up getting all the essential amino acids. Different protein combinations (http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/protein_combo.htm) will provide all the necessary amino acids, and these combinations include grains and legumes, corn and legumes, nuts/seeds and legumes, and so on.

The reason we don't give babies meat right off the bat is because their digestive systems and kidneys aren't mature enough to handle high-protein foods, and they have to mature enough to be able to swallow foods safely. At a very young age (the first couple months), they need breast milk or a baby formula that is similar in composition (including the protein content) to breast milk. Yes, babies may throw up meat, but they usually spit up a lot of any of their foods just because the muscles between the esophagus and stomach aren't mature, either, and food comes up a lot easier as a result. The current thought about when to start solid foods is shown in many guides such as this one here (http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/infant/startingsolids.html), though every parent needs to discuss that with their pediatrician or family doctor because each child is individual.

@Weave--I suspect the higher fat content in the meat would be what would make you throw up rather than an intolerance of meat in general. I had the same problem after I had my gall bladder out, especially if the meat was very high fat. It was definitely an incentive to eat lower-fat proteins. :)
Hey, we need some good veggie recipes from the vegetarians. I'd love to learn how to make some interesting dishes vegetarian dishes besides refried beans or bean soup. Our family needs to learn how to eat less of the typical American diet and more of healthier foods.

Achilles
10-03-2007, 08:16 PM
This was just to support my arguement on: Do Vegetarians get enough protein. :) Understood, but the original question was "Do human naturally eat meat?".

My argument thus far has been "yes". Your counter-arguments thus far have been "modern vegetarians do not need to". :)

Basically... I was just saying that vegetarians do. As for lean meat, that raises the question: Do we need to slaughter so many animals whom have lots of fat? Again, completely ancillary. We breed animals to be fat because it allows you to "harvest" more meat per animal. I don't particularly care for fatty meat and tend to go for leaner cuts when treating myself to the red.

Not sure what this has to do with our natural relationship with meat though ;)

As for meat adding to the development of the brain and abstract thinking: It doesn't explain why other primates haven't developed such traits after so long. Actually, it seems rather self-explanatory: they are on a different evolutionary branch. Had they developed like us, they would have been us. Since they didn't they are still them.

But in the spirit of debate, how would you categorize chimps using tools to capture grubs and termites for snacks? Carnivorous?

Plus, too much meat leads to brain degeneracy. I do agree that lean red meat DOES benefit someone... but the fact that hardly anyone actually goes out and eats specifically lean red meat does discredit the whole point of eating meat IMO. And in the context of early man?

True. But let's try it on a completely vegie-raised baby and see. I'm all for it. Still not sure what it has to do with the original question.

... and my digestive track is fully developed.While I'm sorry to hear that, I do still want to point out that you seem to be making my point for me :D

Another problem with the video is Chimpanzees are pictured as herbivores, but like us, they are omnivores. Doh! You beat me to it.

Damn Achilles already got my second point about difference between game and farmed raised animals. We're even :D

Weave
10-03-2007, 09:16 PM
@Weave--I suspect the higher fat content in the meat would be what would make you throw up rather than an intolerance of meat in general. I had the same problem after I had my gall bladder out, especially if the meat was very high fat. It was definitely an incentive to eat lower-fat proteins. :)

True for me... but for Vegans and Vegetarians who do not take advantage of their diet and end up eating fatty foods to fill themselves up (bad Vegies as I call them, since they abuse their diet), this seems untrue since they also cannot eat meat after going without it for a long time.
Another example is my mother. She cannot eat beef because of her intolerance to it: She eats turkey, chicken, fish, and pork... but cow meat makes her sick. Why? Because she hasn't eaten it in a long time and lost her tolerance to it. She is certainly by all means tolerant to fat (hence her cheesecake addiction) but i still retain the belief that meat needs to be developed as a tolerant substance first. Although, not having too much fat tolerance certainly does help with no meat tolerance. I agree with that whole-heartedly.

As for recipes... I've got a million of em'... I'll compose a little presentation later tonight. (Probably in a PM or a thread in Ahto Spaceport) :D


Again, completely ancillary. We breed animals to be fat because it allows you to "harvest" more meat per animal. I don't particularly care for fatty meat and tend to go for leaner cuts when treating myself to the red.

Not sure what this has to do with our natural relationship with meat though ;)


That's 'cause I'm on a mission of conversion, hence the underlying question, "How many animals REALLY need to be killed, for christ's sakes!" :indif: See... the point of that little excerpt is off-topic intentionally because, at least, I want people to think about, Do we really to kill animals in the numbers they are slaughtered in (even if you do eat meat). Quite frankly, it has nothin' to do with the debate... :p I'm just being Vegie-nazi and imposing my views on people... but... sadly... I suck at letting people know when I'm just being cryptic... so, in all seriousness, this has nothing to do with my topic.

And in the context of early man?

Like you said earlier: humans of then were highly nomadic... they moved around a lot and were very active: The degeneracy can be caused by fat... I was being too broad with that... but the effects caused by too much meat upon a human now and then... isn't really different... assuming that you're talking about homo-sapiens sapiens when you relate it to "humans of then"... Alas, you're correct... I'm doing conversion again... it's too much trans fats and other sorts of negative minerals/nutrients that leads to brain degeneracy.

While I'm sorry to hear that, I do still want to point out that you seem to be making my point for me

I'm pointing out that my digestive tract can't take meat because I've lost my tolerance to it. I'm just speculating on whether or not a fully developed digestive tract is relevant to digesting meat since I have a fully developed one and used to eat meat. Now that I've stopped, I can't eat it anymore. My point is: I think building a tolerance to meat is much more important to eating it than the actual digestive tract.

--------

As for humans not being able to eat meat, NATURALLY......

1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria. Which is inconsistent with meat enhancing the brain since we would have already had to know how to cook it in the first place (which is thought abstraction). So... i doubt meat enhances thinking because we would have had to eaten it before in order to learn how to cook... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat... we probably got our enhanced thought from other things (natural selection perhaps).

2.We are not built to run after prey and catch it... no tools included. The only reason this ever happened was because of our ability to problem-solve and use tools.

3. Our teeth are mainly vegetarian, save for the canine (which are pretty whimpy, let's face it... it's not like we can rip straight into the hide of an animal while it's dead on the ground...)

---

...not to be mean or anything... but it sounds like you're assuming that I'm backing up "No" to the answer of my question. That's untrue, I'm saying that it's not nearly as natural as people think. I believe us to be more herbivore than carnivore... more like in between an herbivore/omnivore (bouderline). However, I admit that I didn't clarify the quesion: How natural is it really? I'll be sure to clarify things more in future debates.
And as for the Brain developing arguement: I think that has more to do with evolutionary thought process than what's in our diet. I don't wanna brag... but I used to have a low IQ (below 90) in Elementary school (meat days) and now I have one that's over 150 (non-meat days)... I'm just not convinced with the research, especially considering that it's a weak theory and a RECENT study.

Achilles
10-03-2007, 10:13 PM
That's 'cause I'm on a mission of conversion, hence the underlying question, "How many animals REALLY need to be killed, for christ's sakes!" :indif: *shrugs* If this is going to go off on a tangent about factory-farming, then I'm right behind you.

See... the point of that little excerpt is off-topic intentionally because, at least, I want people to think about, Do we really to kill animals in the numbers they are slaughtered in (even if you do eat meat). Quite frankly, it has nothin' to do with the debate... :p I'm just being Vegie-nazi and imposing my views on people... but... sadly... I suck at letting people know when I'm just being cryptic... so, in all seriousness, this has nothing to do with my topic. *puts Weave on his buddy list because he's honest*

I'm pointing out that my digestive tract can't take meat because I've lost my tolerance to it. I'm just speculating on whether or not a fully developed digestive tract is relevant to digesting meat since I have a fully developed one and used to eat meat. Now that I've stopped, I can't eat it anymore. My point is: I think building a tolerance to meat is much more important to eating it than the actual digestive tract. It's possible.

1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. We don't now. It's possible (I'm speaking highly speculatively here) that we had them in the past. We've had fire and have been cooking food for a very, very long time. It's entirely possible that we lost that trait at some point in our evolutionary developement.

Which is inconsistent with meat enhancing the brain since we would have already had to know how to cook it in the first place (which is thought abstraction). So... i doubt meat enhances thinking because we would have had to eaten it before in order to learn how to cook... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat... we probably got our enhanced thought from other things (natural selection perhaps). The argument wasn't that meat was necessary for cognitive function, per se, rather that our bodies required more robust sources of protein to sustain increasing body mass/brain size (Lucy was 2.5 feet tall compared to modern females which are typically twice that size and have much larger brains). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that adopting meat as a food source provided a catalyst for larger bodies/more developed brains.

2.We are not built to run after prey and catch it... no tools included. The only reason this ever happened was because of our ability to problem-solve and use tools. Which would be consistent with naturally selecting for intelligence. We do have predatory traits though (although I suppose they could be scavenger traits also. Hmmm....).

3. Our teeth are mainly vegetarian, save for the canine (which are pretty whimpy, let's face it... it's not like we can rip straight into the hide of an animal while it's dead on the ground...) *still stuck on early humans as scavengers* Hmmmm...

...not to be mean or anything... but it sounds like you're assuming that I'm backing up "No" to the answer of my question. You're correct, I am. If this is in error, then I apologize.

That's untrue, I'm saying that it's not nearly as natural as people think. The opposite of natural is artifical. Early man (primates?) artificially selected meat as a food source?

I believe us to be more herbivore than carnivore... more like in between an herbivore/omnivore (bouderline). I would agree (as would most biologist/anthropologist) that omnivore is pretty much dead on.

However, I admit that I didn't clarify the quesion: How natural is it really? Pretty natural :D

And as for the Brain developing arguement: I think that has more to do with evolutionary thought process than what's in our diet. I don't wanna brag... but I used to have a low IQ (below 90) in Elementary school (meat days) and now I have one that's over 150 (non-meat days)... I'm just not convinced with the research, especially considering that it's a weak theory and a RECENT study.One would have to rule out social bias in IQ tests and the fact that adults tend to have more developed cognitive function than children (brains still developing and all :)). It is possible that more veggies have made you smarter. It's also possible that finishing elementary school made you smarter as well :D

Take care!

Rev7
10-04-2007, 01:43 AM
Oh, Rev7, you certainly can get proteins from vegetables and cheeses....
Thank you for informing me.
@Jae-- If you get your gall bladder removed, you can't eat red meat.
btw, I do eat lots of greens too,and I try to eat my meat in moderation. I know that too much meat IS BAD for your body, I honestly prefer fish than cow.

Jae Onasi
10-04-2007, 02:14 AM
Actually, assuming everything's going normally, there are no long term food restrictions after gall bladder surgery. I've been eating red meat for the last 8 years since I had it out. :) There are some short-term restrictions as the body adjusts to not having a gall bladder, but after that, unless there are specific issues for an individual, there aren't any restrictions.

@Weave--there's always the possibility of allergies to meat (or any food) that can cause vomiting rather than just an intolerance. My daughter has a dairy allergy that manifested in that way. Also, we can fight off most bacteria in meat--no food is sterile, and the stomach acid kills off many bacteria. Some bacteria like salmonella can survive the hostile environment of the stomach and cause problems, but that's not a common thing.
We can digest raw meats--my parents used to serve 'cannibal sandwiches' (raw hamburger) at parties and people loved them. Fortunately, we know a little bit more about food safety issues now....

PoiuyWired
10-04-2007, 06:32 AM
Well, cannibal sandwiches are basically dumb down steak tartar??

Personally I think we are mostly Omnivore. While we are not that close to things like chimps, their diet would give us a good vision on what we might have used to support our diet before we start massive hunting. Chimps hunt, then again they also eat termites and ants, things I don't quite enjoy eating (grasshoppers, on the other hand, is yummy)

Plus, rather than things like cows and sheeps and chickens and dogs and guniea pigs, there are other meat sources out there in the form of fish and shellfish and what not.

And yes, generally we do consume most of a fish.

Darth333
10-04-2007, 10:47 AM
1. We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria.
Go tell that to an Inuk! When buying a few veggies at a coop store up North, someone once told me something along those lines: "yuck! Rabbit food!" :p

As for human nature... I disagree that eating meat is by any means apart of human nature. However, I do agree that part of our abstract thinking is to look for more pleasurable things... which we indulge in by consuming meat.
I also disagree with that and believe that it's an environment thing. People living close to the see will normally eat more fish/seafood than people who live inland (however I guess that with modern transportation means, that becomes less true as it's easy to get fresh fish in most places).

To take the inuit example again: plants in the arctic grow only a few months per year (berries are quite popular in August) and there's no way you can grow veggies there. Eating seal, fish, beluga, cariboo, birds, etc was just a natural thing (but with modern life diet also changes and unfortunately today, junk food has a huge place in that diet too because it's easy to get). The animals there are not seen as cute furry pets but as a normal part of the foodchain and everything has a use: the bones, the skin, the meat, the feathers... Even today, in Nunavik, every village has "community freezers" where hunters take fish, meat and skins to the freezers for the use of other community members.

Humans are omnivorous. What our bodies can/cannot tolerate is influenced by the environment we live in and general habits and lifestyle. Just think about the North American tourist that goes down South and isn't careful about what he eats :p

tk102
10-04-2007, 11:40 AM
We don't have the enzymes to eat it RAW, like other animals. Other animals can kill the bacteria that infest a corpse. Humans cannot... therefore, we have to cook it to kill the bacteria... and since our digestive systems can't break down the bacteria in meat...
I don't think it's a question of enzymes or stomach acids breaking down bacteria as much as building up an immune system that can stave off bacterial toxins and infections -- sort of like what you described with your own digestive tract not tolerating cooked meat.

There are a number of humans that consume raw meat on a regular basis. Darth333 has already given the example of the Inuit and Google or Wikipedia will lead a number of other diets based on raw foods (including raw meat).

Web Rider
10-04-2007, 03:15 PM
@ Web Rider - Has this topic already been touched on before? If so... could you give me the link to that other topic (if one exists). Or are you implying that it's not worth discussing? No trying to be agressive or anything... just wondering. :)

Yes, though it may have been before the database crash, as there are only 3 pages of topics in Kavar's Corner which seems like far less than there were. However, it may have been posted on Deviantart, as since both there and here have similar debates and members with similar attitudes, I often get them confused. But I looked, and couldn't find it.

I am also implying that the topic is not worth discussing, though I'm a little late for that. Humans have both carnivorous and herbivorous teeth, and some that are a bit of a mix between the two. Meat eating has been a common facet of many cultures and peoples from all over the world. While humans may not be designed for say, tearing the side out of an antelope, even without tools humans are capable of catching smaller prey, and it's also highly likely that if you picked up a rabbit, you'd be able to bit through it's sides uncooked.

As people has stated above me, it's likely humans were tougher critters a few hundred thousand years ago, and were more animalistic, and therefore capable of eating raw (red) meat. Our desire to cook things is not dependent on meat, as many vegetables are cooked for a variety of meals as well. Meat tends to smell good when cooked, as most things primitive humans discovered were done so out of curiosity or accident, and the idea of cooked food likely derives from some cave guy sticking his piece of meat in the fire and noticing it smelled good, and then repeating the process.

I do agree with you that fatty foods are bad, and am extremely pissed at my college for having such crappy food when they go on and on about how healthy their stuff is. So while I will disagree that red meat is bad, I will agree, that like all things, an excess of it is bad, and too much fat is bad. I would be in full support of raising far leaner animals.

dang...I just discussed it...poo.

Ray Jones
10-04-2007, 03:53 PM
Meat tends to smell good when cooked, as most things primitive humans discovered were done so out of curiosity or accidentOr by simply imitating things from their environment.
and the idea of cooked food likely derives from some cave guy sticking his piece of meat in the fire and noticing it smelled good, and then repeating the process.Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.

Web Rider
10-04-2007, 03:56 PM
Or by simply imitating things from their environment.
Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.

Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell. While it's possible that an animal may be just rightly cooked in a fire, it's very unlikly.

Achilles
10-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.Or lightning strikes
:lightning

Ray Jones
10-04-2007, 04:20 PM
I did not talk about burned to coal. Also, in a bush/woodfire not all animals die due to direct contact with fire. The heat can be high enough to cook/roast flesh in case some animal tries to hide where ever but with semi-optimal success. For instance.

Web Rider
10-04-2007, 07:06 PM
I did not talk about burned to coal. Also, in a bush/woodfire not all animals die due to direct contact with fire. The heat can be high enough to cook/roast flesh in case some animal tries to hide where ever but with semi-optimal success. For instance.

it is possible, though cooked meat is generally best when cooked, and I imagine fires scared off primitive humans. Though, admittedly, it's possible.

Jae Onasi
10-04-2007, 08:06 PM
Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell. While it's possible that an animal may be just rightly cooked in a fire, it's very unlikly.

Burnt human flesh has a horrible smell. It's nothing like, say, steak on our grill. I think someone decided they wanted warm food on a cold night, stuck the meat in a fire (or it accidentally fell in the fire), decided it tasted good, and there you go.

Ray Jones
10-05-2007, 10:19 AM
it is possible, though cooked meat is generally best when cooked, and I imagine fires scared off primitive humans.I'd be surprised if the "primitive humans" did not recognise very quickly what power fire would give them. I think for a tool using pre-human it's not hard to get that fire delivers warmth and makes meat easier to digest.

But the idea to actually cook meat/plants in boiling water does not belong to the early humans of the old stone age anyway. As you might know, to boil water you need fire and a pot and it's pretty unlikely that humans invented the clay pot before they discovered how to use fire-- in fact first records indicating the use of fire are dated around 350000 to 250000 years ago (old stone age/lower paleolithic period), while the oldest (known) clay pots are dated circa 12000 years old (new stone age/neolithic period).

Weave
10-06-2007, 01:19 AM
To take the inuit example again: plants in the arctic grow only a few months per year (berries are quite popular in August) and there's no way you can grow veggies there. Eating seal, fish, beluga, cariboo, birds, etc was just a natural thing (but with modern life diet also changes and unfortunately today, junk food has a huge place in that diet too because it's easy to get). The animals there are not seen as cute furry pets but as a normal part of the foodchain and everything has a use: the bones, the skin, the meat, the feathers... Even today, in Nunavik, every village has "community freezers" where hunters take fish, meat and skins to the freezers for the use of other community members.

Hmmmm... wouldn't that imply that the Inuits adapted to their icy environment? That, without much heat, and only fish as a main source of food, they were forced to adapt to stomaching raw foods and larger quantities of fish (which may have small amounts of magnesium in them) leading to their hardier digestion.

Another thing that I'll use to back-up or inability to eat raw meat, is our very LONG intestines. It takes a long time to pass waste through our digestive system, (similar function between weak omnivores and herbivores) whereas carnivores (and in some cases, strong omnivores) take a much shorter time to pass things through their digestive track. Mostly because hunters are continuously nomadic and need to, eat, take a crap, and move on. Humans are much more sedentary (although back in the days we were nomadic, it doesn't compare to natural born predators).

I am also implying that the topic is not worth discussing, though I'm a little late for that. Humans have both carnivorous and herbivorous teeth, and some that are a bit of a mix between the two. Meat eating has been a common facet of many cultures and peoples from all over the world. While humans may not be designed for say, tearing the side out of an antelope, even without tools humans are capable of catching smaller prey, and it's also highly likely that if you picked up a rabbit, you'd be able to bit through it's sides uncooked.

You can never be too late to enter a discussion. :)
Although, like I said earlier, I'm backing up that humans were weak omnivores (bourderline herbivore) not complete vegie eaters. So, We're sort of speculating, what is most natural for a human to eat. As for rabbits, if it was infested with bacteria, that's a pretty big problem for us being completely natural hunters/meat-eaters or extreamely versitile omnivores. Or main defence (IMO) against that stuff is adaptation. Which, isn't natural from the beginning but is instead, an achieved trait.
Plus, I think it's pretty relevant. It is a heated subjct amongst hardcore Vegans, as I have seen

Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell.

Then again, humans are rarely canniblistic, and if they are, they do like the smell. I think our pleasure in the smell of meat is some sort of adaptation IMO. Our increased thought makes us easier to adapt willingly. Back then, the sweat from our armpits was an aphrodisiac to our mates. Now, it's a symbol of lack of hygiene (which has a lack of sex appeal). I think the smell of meat is all in our head. I personally don't really find it appealing at all... even when I ate meat. Some of it smelled like puke to me.

I don't think it's a question of enzymes or stomach acids breaking down bacteria as much as building up an immune system that can stave off bacterial toxins and infections -- sort of like what you described with your own digestive tract not tolerating cooked meat.

Then it's not our stomachs that are the problem. It's our immune systems. Still, it's the same thing, we have a naturally low tolerance to meat... that hasn't really changed.

There are a number of humans that consume raw meat on a regular basis. Darth333 has already given the example of the Inuit and Google or Wikipedia will lead a number of other diets based on raw foods (including raw meat).

I do know about raw fish. I used to eat it when I started on vegetarianism (Although, since I ate fish, I called myself an Aquatarian :lol: ). Mainly, I ate Sushi, Sashimi, and very rare-cooked Talapia etc.
But, that's modern humans who have adapted to such things like that. What is the connection to the first humans?

The argument wasn't that meat was necessary for cognitive function, per se, rather that our bodies required more robust sources of protein to sustain increasing body mass/brain size (Lucy was 2.5 feet tall compared to modern females which are typically twice that size and have much larger brains). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that adopting meat as a food source provided a catalyst for larger bodies/more developed brains.

I see what you mean. I'll think on this.

The opposite of natural is artifical. Early man (primates?) artificially selected meat as a food source?

Perhaps meat is more of a survival thing that humans possibly used to fall back on. Such as in times of food shortages or during low population drops. I'm saying that perhaps, our tendency to begin eating more meat is out of two things:

1. pleasure...
2. to ensure the complete survival of our species.

It can explain the reason why we have such population crises now is that we eat increased meat. Increased food supply = an increased population... which is unnatural to other species since they keep their own populations balanced. The reason why it explains this is because an animal's natural diet is as balanced as the animal itself. Since we have developed tastes for so many different animals... it may explain that we did this early in history as a means to expand our diet in order to survive catastrophes such as the ice age. Doing so is adaptation.

Speculation: And I think that eating more meat may have inevitibly lead to our global overcrowding. Becuase it is a natural 'law' that an increased food supply (which we have the biggest of any animal on the planet) leads to an increased population: hence the reason why solving world hunger is impossible... because EVEN MORE humans would be born and consume those resources. We seriously are a virus. :(

One would have to rule out social bias in IQ tests and the fact that adults tend to have more developed cognitive function than children (brains still developing and all ). It is possible that more veggies have made you smarter. It's also possible that finishing elementary school made you smarter as well

Well... all I remember is hating elementary school profusely... when middle-school came around... I was much happier. It may have been a motivational thing. :)

Rev7
10-06-2007, 01:26 AM
Actually, assuming everything's going normally, there are no long term food restrictions after gall bladder surgery. I've been eating red meat for the last 8 years since I had it out. :) There are some short-term restrictions as the body adjusts to not having a gall bladder, but after that, unless there are specific issues for an individual, there aren't any restrictions.
HMMMMM, I have a teacher that had her gall bladder removed and she said that she CANNOT eat red meat. Maybe she was just misinformed.

Achilles
10-06-2007, 02:30 AM
Perhaps meat is more of a survival thing that humans possibly used to fall back on. Such as in times of food shortages or during low population drops. I'm saying that perhaps, our tendency to begin eating more meat is out of two things:

1. pleasure...
2. to ensure the complete survival of our species. Sorry, can't picture early man eating meat to be fashionable. Sure it may have began out of necessity (food shortages in africa are commonly attributed to selection for bipedal locomotion and nomadic tendencies in early man), but our evolved teeth, digestive systems, etc would seem to indicate that it was eventually quite natural for us.

Speculation: And I think that eating more meat may have inevitibly lead to our global overcrowding. Becuase it is a natural 'law' that an increased food supply (which we have the biggest of any animal on the planet) leads to an increased population: hence the reason why solving world hunger is impossible... because EVEN MORE humans would be born and consume those resources. We seriously are a virus. :( :lol: I like how you totally skipped over the Agricultural Revolution and the impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agriculture when speculating that population explosions may have been tied to meat :D

Just pokin' fun at ya ;)

Well... all I remember is hating elementary school profusely... when middle-school came around... I was much happier. It may have been a motivational thing. :)I hated everything up to my junior hear of high school. *LOVED* college!

Weave
10-06-2007, 09:10 PM
Sorry, can't picture early man eating meat to be fashionable. Sure it may have began out of necessity (food shortages in africa are commonly attributed to selection for bipedal locomotion and nomadic tendencies in early man), but our evolved teeth, digestive systems, etc would seem to indicate that it was eventually quite natural for us.

Either way, I guess this topic is a little too broad. Mainly since there's so many theories on what humans were back then. Let alone our behavioral habits and what may have been adaptation/evolution... etc.

:lol: I like how you totally skipped over the Agricultural Revolution and the impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agriculture when speculating that population explosions may have been tied to meat :D

Just pokin' fun at ya ;)

Well... I did consider the Agricultural Revolution... but my conclusion is that, that's where our arrogance came from.

"Look, we can manipulate the earth! Does that mean that we should rule it?"

Just my own bias^^^

Anyway, It certainly pushed us to increase our food supply. But meat increases the number of possible resources that we can consume for our diet... increasing our dietary range. And at this day and age... we kill countless millions of animals for food... which was original provoked by our pleasure for meat. The Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions simply increased our productivity. Pursuing more meaty foods and adding more animals has given our increased productivity a chance to make more food for our continually increasing population, which wouldn't be happening if we didn't eat so much meat. Just speculation though.

I hated everything up to my junior hear of high school. *LOVED* college!

Well my junior year kinda sucks. :lol:
Oh well.... things'll come around soon enough... :Prplgh:

John Galt
10-06-2007, 11:26 PM
But, as Earth's resident sentient species, we DO rule it. Man is the only animal that can shape things according to his will (as in, he has one). This is what seperates us from the animals.

Totenkopf
10-07-2007, 12:24 AM
"Look, we can manipulate the earth! Does that mean that we should rule it?"

Versus..? Or put another way, if not us, who/what?

El Sitherino
10-07-2007, 12:31 AM
How natural is eating meat?
Canine teeth. Discussion over.

Darth InSidious
10-07-2007, 08:55 AM
Domesticated animals, canine teeth as Sithy kindly mentioned, drawings of hunting on almost all prehistoric dwellings.

You figure it out.

Q
10-07-2007, 11:19 AM
Canine teeth. Discussion over.
Exactly. Human teeth can not be accurately described as the teeth of an herbivore.

Darth InSidious
10-07-2007, 11:27 AM
Furthermore, may I cite the redundancy of the appendix, a feature that must have ceased being useful and therefore been abandoned by genetics millions of years ago?

JasraLantill
10-07-2007, 11:57 AM
Do humans naturally eat meat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4N8DITWAWE)?

Well, chimps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I) do, so I suppose (if you believe in evolution) that it's natural for humans to as well. And, yeah, I agree with Sithy--canine teeth, enough said. :)

Have to say though that the PETA video you linked us to is just bloody awful, but it does show the reality of the corporate farming industry and the consequences of hiring minimum-wage (or less if they're illegal or only casual workers), untrained farm laborers to produce cheaper eggs, dairy (which includes cheese and ice cream, mind), and meat for mass consumption. Having been brought up on a farm (and currently living on one,) I can honestly say that I have never seen such horrible treatment of animals as was shown in that video, whether it be chickens, pigs, or cows. What's shown in that video isn't in any way, shape, or form 'industry standard'.

I am particular where I buy my food, and try to buy local as much as possible and free-range or organic when I can't. For example, I *know* my eggs are free range, because I buy them from the farm down the road. I don't mind paying a bit extra for certain items, and if people don't want factory farms to continue, then they should vote with their wallets when it comes purchasing those 'cheap' factory farmed meat, poultry, and dairy products.

((I do have to wonder though why PETA didn't include farmed fish in its video. Fish is 'meat', too, after all. And I imagine that some of the 'farmed' fish (catfish, trout, salmon, etc.) are kept in rather cramped conditions. But I guess it's pretty difficult to show a fish as cute and cuddly.))

As for protein alternatives, I'm very wary about soy (http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/soydangers.html) and actively try to avoid it. (Hard though when it seems to be in *everything* nowadays.) I'll get my protein from fish, egg whites, cheese, milk, and the occasional lean Angus-beef steak, thank you very much. :)

Weave
10-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Well let me point out (again) that I support that it is somewhat natural...
As for eating mammoths (early on) I doubt that was ever natural and that we adapted to eating meat: which was influenced by our ability to choose what we eat. I'm saying that, originally, humans were bourderline herbivore/omnivore...

Sure, we have canine teeth... but those are small... for small animals. We've adapted to eating large animals which I don't think is natural to begin with. The appendix's usefullness is something we threw off during adaptation.
I'm talking about what we probably originally consumed before our many evolutionary changes. I accept the belief that small animals and perhaps a few medium sized ones (to fall back on during harsh times) were eaten... but eating larger animals? I doubt that was originally part of our diet.

As for fish... I have a pretty good video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijlybblwzNk).

El Sitherino
10-07-2007, 10:17 PM
Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.


Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

Jae Onasi
10-07-2007, 11:15 PM
Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.


Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

*Jae breaks into song--"Attack, of the Killer To-maaaa-toes! Attack, of the Killer To-maaaa-toes!"*

To be honest, we can make some educated guesses on this, but I don't know if we'll ever definitively know unless there's just some incredible archaeological find, and I suspect even if we found that, it'd still be very specific to that culture.
The only real decision we get to make is whether we eat as vegetarians or not. :)

Weave
10-08-2007, 02:40 AM
Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.


Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

Uh... no. ;)

You bring up the canines: I'll bring up the mollers. Used for grinding down plants. We were hunters AND gatherers. We gathered plants. Eating plants alone sustains you more than eating meat alone... that's a fact of ALL omnivorous creatures. Where meat has about 3 important nutrients: Protein, Vitamin B12, and Iron... Plants/Fruits, etc... have countless important nutrients. Being carnivourous would never sustain us completely... we HAVE to have some sort of plant nutrients... which is still true today.

To be honest, we can make some educated guesses on this, but I don't know if we'll ever definitively know unless there's just some incredible archaeological find, and I suspect even if we found that, it'd still be very specific to that culture.
The only real decision we get to make is whether we eat as vegetarians or not.

Tis' True. Still... debating never hurt, eh?
*plus, conversion scheme was somewhat successful :Prplgh:*
-cough- -ahem-
Being a one-man army defending bourderline herbivore/omnivore is tiring too.

Thread closed then?

Darth InSidious
10-08-2007, 06:08 AM
Well if you want the archaeological theory, we were originally a hunter-gatherer species. That means hunting (meat) and gathering (other foodstuffs), for those who find this stuff difficult to follow. Omnivorousness seems likely. Besides, have you ever tried an all-meat diet? The medieval/early modern European monarchs were into it. Not. Healthy.

Ray Jones
10-08-2007, 09:29 AM
Originally (read: 3 million years ago) we supposedly were omnivorous gatherers/scavangers living in the forests. We only came out of the forrest when there was nothing to find (like small animals, insects, eggs but also fruits, nuts, roots, other eatable parts of plants) to seek for these things in the savannah/grasslands. Most probably we also found (and ate) bigger dead animals and what carnivores left over.

Later it seems, we left our secure home more often (also due to climatic changes causing the rain forest to disappear with the time) to strive through the grasslands and also developed tactics to scare even relatively big animals off their dead prey, so the quality of what we got got better. Basically we weren't hunters but thieves who stole other animals' meals. But in the end this seems to be the small but needed change in our diet (more, better meat, and thus more proteins) that caused our brain to develop and change rapidly (in evolutional terms).

The next step (also a result of the meaty diet) was that our tools and weaponry became so good that we, instead of just scaring them off, were able to hunt down other, if not all, even carnivorous animals.

Since that point we were hunters. Hunters by the means of "Four legs but not table, couch or chair? *stab*mnyumyumhumnumomnomnomnomnom*burp*!!"

As for the "relatively small canines" which were supposedly only good for "relatively small prey", we've never really used them to hunt down whatever sized animal, but used them to eat whatever sized animal. Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).



[edit]

Ok, I did some further research and found something interesting:

It is believed that we somehow developed from the Australopithecus, whose ancestors seemed to be "fruit eaters" only. As mentioned earlier, due to climate changes it happened that the rain forest slowly disappeared and the environment changed towards being Savannah/grassland offering only harder to eat and digest nuts, roots, seeds instead of juicy fruits and leafs of the rain forest.

Current theories support the idea that there were different genetic lines of the Australopithecus. Some, like Australopithecus africanus (believed ancestors of the species homo), became omnivorous, and some became herbivorous (like Australopithecus robustus) and specialised to being able to eat hard roots and the like, which was for that climate and environment a perfect "move". However, climate changes happen to be of a somewhat static nature, and thus the very specialised herbivorous line was not able to adapt fast enough and accordingly at some point and went extinct.

What does that mean? The ancestors of our ancestors were most probably herbivores specialised to eat fruits (only). But our (direct) ancestors only had the chance to make it because they were able to eat omnivorous, and with that had the better diet compared to hard and dry plants. Is it naturally to eat meat? Yes. And without we would most probably not be here discussing this.

Weave
10-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally (read: 3 million years ago) we supposedly were omnivorous gatherers/scavangers living in the forests. We only came out of the forrest when there was nothing to find (like small animals, insects, eggs but also fruits, nuts, roots, other eatable parts of plants) to seek for these things in the savannah/grasslands. Most probably we also found (and ate) bigger dead animals and what carnivores left over.

Seems to support my belief of bourderline herbivore/omnivore since we were scavengers who ate mostly small kills. :)

As for the "relatively small canines" which were supposedly only good for "relatively small prey", we've never really used them to hunt down whatever sized animal, but used them to eat whatever sized animal. Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).

Another thing that supports that we were (and still are) only specialized for a mix of an omnivorous/herbivourous diet is how our teeth don't grow back after we loose our permanents.

It is believed that we somehow developed from the Australopithecus, whose ancestors seemed to be "fruit eaters" only. As mentioned earlier, due to climate changes it happened that the rain forest slowly disappeared and the environment changed towards being Savannah/grassland offering only harder to eat and digest nuts, roots, seeds instead of juicy fruits and leafs of the rain forest.

Fruit eaters only, eh? Haven't heard that one before.

Current theories support the idea that there were different genetic lines of the Australopithecus. Some, like Australopithecus africanus (believed ancestors of the species homo), became omnivorous, and some became herbivorous (like Australopithecus robustus) and specialised to being able to eat hard roots and the like, which was for that climate and environment a perfect "move". However, climate changes happen to be of a somewhat static nature, and thus the very specialised herbivorous line was not able to adapt fast enough and accordingly at some point and went extinct.

Interesting.

What does that mean? The ancestors of our ancestors were most probably herbivores specialised to eat fruits (only). But our (direct) ancestors only had the chance to make it because they were able to eat omnivorous, and with that had the better diet compared to hard and dry plants. Is it naturally to eat meat? Yes. And without we would most probably not be here discussing this.

Is it natural to eat meat? Some meats are very natural: while others are artificially put into our diet. Still, all this supports that we are specialized in eating small animals, due to the size of our canine teeth, and lots of vegies, due to our many dull teeth such as the mollers. So, it definitely supports that we're carnivorous to a certain extent: hence my theory, weak omnivore/herbivore. Meat seems to be much more of an evolutionary trait than eating plants.

Either way, thanks for the research :D! Especially the tid-bit about fruit eaters... never knew that. It's odd too since eating too many fruits now-a-days isn't really good for us. Then again... if we all excersized a bit more... that probably wouldn't be too much of a problem :p
Plus, we may have thrown off much of the "yolk" that depended on eating fruit as time passed. blah blah blah [/rant]

Ray Jones
10-08-2007, 03:19 PM
Seems to support my belief of bourderline herbivore/omnivore since we were scavengers who ate mostly small kills.Scavangers usually do not kill at all. And borderline herbivore or not does not matter, since it was the ability to eat something else than plants that brought us through, not the other way around. :)


Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).Another thing that supports that we were (and still are) only specialized for a mix of an omnivorous/herbivourous diet is how our teeth don't grow back after we loose our permanents.I think my language was somewhat bad, because what I had in mind was "develop back", not "grow back".

Also, I don't think the fact that our teeth are only growing twice has nothing to do with our diet, since mammals, regardless of their diet, usually grow teeth only twice. Fishes and reptiles grow their teeth more often.


Is it natural to eat meat? Some meats are very natural: while others are artificially put into our diet."Artificially put into our diet?" I don't think so. Like everywhere else around the world, what can be eaten goes down the throat. Any tiger will, when hungry, not stop at your neighbour's dog just because he's not at his 'natural meat' list. Of course, usually any hunting animal will not attack something much bigger than its own size, but zebras and gnus are not necessarily smaller than the average lion is. The reason why we attacked mammoths is not to artificially put something on our diet, but because we were able to and one mammoth gave food for months and useful materials like its fur, bones and teeth for weapons, tents and ornaments. If a lion could hunt down an elephant, he would do. Also, even the biggest animal, if not ripped apart by any scavangers, will be eaten by pretty damn small things without any form of teeth: bacterias.


Still, all this supports that we are specialized in eating small animals, due to the size of our canine teeth, and lots of vegies, due to our many dull teeth such as the mollers.Really? My point would rather be that we don't have bigger canines because we're specialised to find ways to make big animals small so we didn't need to develop bigger ones. And again, we were more specialised for a carnivorous diet, since vegetation became pretty bad food, and that was our advance compared to the other, more towards herbivorous diet specialised Australopithecus.


It's odd too since eating too many fruits now-a-days isn't really good for us.Do not forget, it's not us humans. It's more like pre-pre-humans from 4-3 million years ago or something. That is *a lot* of time to change and to adapt.

I mean we're not looking exactly like a 4' hairy something either. :)

lukeiamyourdad
10-08-2007, 04:19 PM
Yes, it's natural. In fact, we've been eating meat for so long it is natural.

Weave - Your argument about building up a tolerance to meat rests upon sloppy foundations. Most of your evidence is anecdotal at best. In fact, to your hypothesis about it being a biological element, I believe it to be psychological. The rejection is a result of your mind telling you it's wrong to eat meat thus the body responds accordingly.

Being omnivorous, I think, gives humans a great advantage in terms of survivability in every possible environment as D333 pointed out. When you look at the species that are the least affected by a change in the ecosystem, most if not all are omnivorous. Roaches for example, can eat absolutely anything and they've outlived almost everything.

Then there's the question of overpopulation. Simply putting in on the back of a single factor is highly simplistic. On one hand, the industrial production brought food stores to an incredible high, which ensured a bigger population. Then again, this holds for the western countries, as southern and eastern populations also saw a rise in their population without the incredible technological advancement to back it up. Famine still swept those regions, yet they outnumber the westerners today.
The humans also don't have any predator to keep its population in check. In fact, with our ability to cure diseases, there is literally nothing to properly balance out our population. The advances in medicine contribute to the greater lifespan of humans in our modern world.

So meat being a factor of overpopulation? I don't think so.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-08-2007, 11:15 PM
Uh... no. ;)

You bring up the canines: I'll bring up the mollers.
They grind and chomp anything. For instance, I use my molars to chomp and grind the flesh of lesser creatures.

Corinthian
10-08-2007, 11:56 PM
The size of the canines is irrelevant. When was the last time you tried to take down, say, a pig with your teeth? The answer, of course, is never. When was the last time you heard of someone taking down a pig with their teeth? Probably never. Our teeth aren't weapons...usually. With the ability to take down an animal and then pull it apart, the need for large teeth is near-nonexistent. Can you imagine having your face stuffed full of the kind of teeth you see on animals similar to normal human weight? We'd need a completely different jaw structure.

Anyway, Humans are Omnivores. This is readily apparent. You can't eat meat if you can't digest it, and you can't eat plants if you can't digest them. Well, you can, but you won't get much in the way of benefits and you probably won't enjoy it. I can't really see how, assuming humanity at some point ran out of gatherable food, they were able to sustain themselves on meat they couldn't digest until they were able to evolve, and a Pre-Human who mutated meat-eating teeth wouldn't know what to do with them, unless the mutation also rewrote his instincts.

Rev7
10-09-2007, 01:36 AM
Well if you want the archaeological theory, we were originally a hunter-gatherer species. That means hunting (meat) and gathering (other foodstuffs), for those who find this stuff difficult to follow. Omnivorousness seems likely. Besides, have you ever tried an all-meat diet? The medieval/early modern European monarchs were into it. Not. Healthy.
Good point Insidious. I think it would be kinda hard to go on an ALL meat diet nowadays.