Is dietary orientation and/or classification; e.g. vegetarian and omnivore, a nature or a choice?

[Kirran]

Then after "running the animal to death," he had to use a spear to kill it.

Can you run such an animal to death? If such running endurance is a biological adaption of omnivory in humans, then the vast majority of humans have lost that adaptation.

If you listen to the video, the animal is done for by then.

Right, most humans can't do it, because our lifestyles don't cultivate our bodies in that way. But there are examples of Europeans raised in an environment where they need to do that also being able to do so.

 

[Nous]

It's actually a little under 10%. There've been more or less 108 billion people to have lived, and the world population today is about 7.5 billion. How Many People Have Ever Lived on Earth?

Thank you. I was specifically remembering that 1970s publication that this author referred to. (I think it was some fairly reputable publication.)

In any case, according to this article, for most of human history, the average human, who had a life expectancy of 10 years, did not pass on his/her genes.

Humans are opportunists, we can thrive on a diet with or without meat. We are able to digest meat and live on it, meaning we have evolved to be able to eat it if the need arises.

What biological adaptations relating to eating animals do humans have that distinguish us from our closest living hominid relatives whose diet consists of about 0% animal matter (mostly insects)?

 

[Nous]

If you listen to the video, the animal is done for by then

Then after using the spear to kill the animal, they had to use a knife to rend the animal's hide. Then they had to cook it. It isn't like animals that are biologically adapted to eat other mammals such as that beautiful antelope.

 

[Kirran]

Thank you. I was specifically remembering that 1970s publication that this author referred to. (I think it was some fairly reputable publication.)

In any case, according to this article, for most of human history, the average human, who had a life expectancy of 10 years, did not pass on his/her genes.

True.

What biological adaptations relating to eating animals do humans have that distinguish us from our closest living hominid relatives whose diet consists of about 0% animal matter (mostly insects)?

A chimpanzee is capable of eating plenty of meat, although it in practice generally makes up only 2% of the diet. Not mostly insects. WHAT DO CHIMPS EAT?

Some chimp troops or individuals will have much larger amounts of meat, or chimps might eat a lot more during peak hunting season.

If you look at the human digestive tract, the human is essentially an unspecialised frugivore with a flexible diet that allows it to rely on seeds or meat if needed.

 

[Kirran]

Then after using the spear to kill the animal, they had to use a knife to rend the animal's hide. Then they had to cook it. It isn't like animals that are biologically adapted to eat other mammals such as that beautiful antelope.

Right, but we've had tools capable of doing this quite a way back in our evolutionary history. Back multiple species classifications. Homo habilis, at the latest.

 

[Nous]

A chimpanzee is capable of eating plenty of meat, although it in practice generally makes up only 2% of the diet. Not mostly insects. WHAT DO CHIMPS EAT?

Most of my information about P. troglodytes is gotten from Jan Goodall. I'm pretty sure that by weight or volume, insects make up a greater amount of the animal matter they eat than any other form. And, in fact, for gorillas and P. paniscus the amount of non-insect animal matter eaten is even less.

If you look at the human digestive tract, the human is essentially an unspecialised frugivore with a flexible diet that allows it to rely on seeds or meat if needed.

I don't know of any frugivore that relies on meat from other mammals at any point (unless that's all they are given in their cage).

 

[Nous]

Right, but we've had tools capable of doing this quite a way back in our evolutionary history.

Yes, it isn't anything like the biological adaptations that actual omnivores have.

 

[Kirran]

Most of my information about P. troglodytes is gotten from Jan Goodall. I'm pretty sure that by weight or volume, insects make up a greater amount of the animal matter they eat than any other form. And, in fact, for gorillas and P. paniscus the amount of non-insect animal matter eaten is even less.

I don't know of any frugivore that relies on meat from other mammals at any point (unless that's all they are given in their cage).

Gorillas, yes, they're much more herbivorous.

R.e. insects vs meat I think that probably depends on the troop.

We're by no means strict herbivores, and every hunter-gatherer people in the world has a significant meat component in their diet. Ranging from 30% to 99%.

Yes, it isn't anything like the biological adaptations that actual omnivores have.

We didn't need to evolve them. We had tools. This is extended phenotype.

 

[Nous]

We're by no means strict herbivores

Are "strict herbivores" different from just plain herbivores?

and every hunter-gatherer people in the world has a significant meat component in their diet. Ranging from 30% to 99%.

Cite your evidence.

Are you familiar with the discussions in the anthropological literature regarding "fall-back" foods? I don't know anyone who has claimed that human's or our ancestor's "fall-back" food was animal flesh.

We didn't need to evolve them. We had tools. This is extended phenotype.

I guess their "extended phenotype" is why meat-eaters have a higher mortality rate than people who eat a diet of plant foods.

 

[Kirran]

Are "strict herbivores" different from just plain herbivores?

Nah, I guess not. But we're not herbivores at all so it's somewhat irrelevant.

Cite your evidence.

Fair enough.

This discusses the extreme example of the Inuit, who subsist traditionally on a diet composed almost totally of fish and meat, and can remain in good health - The Aboriginal Eskimo Diet in Modern Perspective - DRAPER - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library

This is a long article discussing diet, and refuting some people's ideas that hunter-gatherer diets have been totally meat-dominated - The Evolution of Diet - it talks about how fallback foods actually provide the majority of calories in many cases, these being tubers, grains and so forth, and help people get by when meat isn't available. A quote from it "It’s true that hunter-gatherers around the world crave meat more than any other food and usually get around 30 percent of their annual calories from animals. But most also endure lean times when they eat less than a handful of meat each week. New studies suggest that more than a reliance on meat in ancient human diets fueled the brain’s expansion." "In other words, there is no one ideal human diet. Aiello and Leonard say the real hallmark of being human isn’t our taste for meat but our ability to adapt to many habitats—and to be able to combine many different foods to create many healthy diets. Unfortunately the modern Western diet does not appear to be one of them."

Are you familiar with the discussions in the anthropological literature regarding "fall-back" foods? I don't know anyone who has claimed that human's or our ancestor's "fall-back" food was animal flesh.

I guess their "extended phenotype" is why meat-eaters have a higher mortality rate than people who eat a diet of plant foods.

Somewhat, yes. Meat generally has not been a fallback food, because it's been a main food.

Depends what you eat, how much, what your lifestyle is etc. It is totally feasible to have a healthy diet which includes meat. It's just unethical.

I am saying meat-eating is natural, in the same way as raping women is natural, and having sex with girls of 13 or 14 is natural. This is not to advocate for such practices.

 

[George-ananda]

Define “omnivore”.

A species capable of consuming both animals and plants.

Obviously, if one doesn't have a biologically based definition, then, in the case of humans (at least), it's meaningless and erroneous to claim that humans are omnivores, as it would just mean that some humans choose to eat other animals. It would not be true to say that all of the humans who do not choose to eat other animals are omnivores.

Humans do not choose to be unable to synthesize vitamin C and therefore need to consume vitamin C daily from an external source. As has been noted by numerous scientists et al., hominids' inability to synthesize vitamin C indicates a long dependence on plant foods that furnish vitamin C. Obviously, humans do not have any biological adaptations resulting from a long history of dependence on eating animals.

My point with that post was to say that humans are omnivores (able to consume plants and animals) but in the modern world they have the power to choose to be vegetarian, omnivore or carnivore. I personally am a lacto-vegetarian by moral choice.

 

[Nous]

A species capable of consuming both animals and plants.

Which mammal species is incapable of "consuming both animals and plants"? As noted, millions upon millions of domestic cats have lived on nothing but Meow Mix.

 

[George-ananda]

Which mammal species is incapable of "consuming both animals and plants"? As noted, millions upon millions of domestic cats have lived on nothing but Meow Mix.

Bovines

• American bison
• European bison
• African buffalo
• Cattle
• Tamaraw
• Saola
• Wisent
• Yak
• Kouprey
• Giant eland
• Gazelles
• Mountain goat
• Goats
• Sheep
• Chinkara
• Deer

Giraffes

• Giraffe
• Okapi

Deer

• Caribou
• Deer
• Elk
• Moose
• Chevrotain

Certain enzymes are needed to break down animal meat.

 

[Nous]

Nah, I guess not. But we're not herbivores at all so it's somewhat irrelevant.

Define the sort of -vore that you claim humans are.

Fair enough.

This discusses the extreme example of the Inuit, who subsist traditionally on a diet composed almost totally of fish and meat, and can remain in good health - The Aboriginal Eskimo Diet in Modern Perspective - DRAPER - 2009 - American Anthropologist - Wiley Online Library

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey 2007-2010, the First Nations people living off reserve, Metis and Inuit had higher rates of a variety of diet-related health conditions than even average non-aboriginal Canadians--who gets less exercise than the aboriginals, and who would compare worse than the average vegetarian: Appendix 1 List of Health Indicators by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations

This is a long article discussing diet, and refuting some people's ideas that hunter-gatherer diets have been totally meat-dominated - The Evolution of Diet - it talks about how fallback foods actually provide the majority of calories in many cases, these being tubers, grains and so forth, and help people get by when meat isn't available. A quote from it "It’s true that hunter-gatherers around the world crave meat more than any other food and usually get around 30 percent of their annual calories from animals. But most also endure lean times when they eat less than a handful of meat each week. New studies suggest that more than a reliance on meat in ancient human diets fueled the brain’s expansion." "In other words, there is no one ideal human diet. Aiello and Leonard say the real hallmark of being human isn’t our taste for meat but our ability to adapt to many habitats—and to be able to combine many different foods to create many healthy diets. Unfortunately the modern Western diet does not appear to be one of them."

The fall-back foods are generally those to which an animal develops biological adaptations for eating and maintaining health.

Meat generally has not been a fallback food, because it's been a main food.

What do you mean by "main food"?

I am saying meat-eating is natural, in the same way as raping women is natural, and having sex with girls of 13 or 14 is natural. This is not to advocate for such practices.

I disagree that there is anything identifiably "natural" (in any non-trivial sense of the word) about raping women.

 

[Nous]

Bovines

• American bison
• European bison
• African buffalo
• Cattle
• Tamaraw
• Saola
• Wisent
• Yak
• Kouprey
• Giant eland
• Gazelles
• Mountain goat
• Goats
• Sheep
• Chinkara
• Deer

Giraffes

• Giraffe
• Okapi

Deer

• Caribou
• Deer
• Elk
• Moose
• Chevrotain

One can find videos online showing a deer eating a dead bird. Cows on factory farms have been fed and consumed all manner animal matter (which is how they got certain horrible diseases such as "mad cow disease").

Certain enzymes are needed to break down animal meat.

Name the enzymes that distinguish omnivores and herbivores.

 

[Kirran]

Define the sort of -vore that you claim humans are.

Omnivore - can eat vegetable and animal tissue.

Our guts show that frugivory is where we're centred at, but we can thrive on a wide variety of diets. Hunter-gatherer diets make use of fruits, nuts, tubers, grains and meat.

According to the Canadian Community Health Survey 2007-2010, the First Nations people living off reserve, Metis and Inuit had higher rates of a variety of diet-related health conditions than even average non-aboriginal Canadians--who gets less exercise than the aboriginals, and who would compare worse than the average vegetarian: Appendix 1 List of Health Indicators by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2013001/article/app/11763-01-app1-eng.htm

Right. OK?

The fall-back foods are generally those to which an animal develops biological adaptations for eating and maintaining health.

Fallback foods are those eaten as a fallback.

What do you mean by "main food"?

Primary dietary component, from which one falls back to fallback foods if it isn't available.

I disagree that there is anything identifiably "natural" (in any non-trivial sense of the word) about raping women.

How not? It occurs throughout human society, has occurred as long as we can tell and is found across a wide variety of animal species.

Nous, do you seriously believe the human is not naturally adapted to being able to thrive on meat as part of its diet if needed? Honestly, this is a surreal thing to find someone believing this so strongly.

 

[Nous]

Omnivore - can eat vegetable and animal tissue.

So according to your definition, cats are omnivores and deer are omnivores. According to your definition, there are only a couple of mammal species that are not omnivores (e.g., anteaters would be one of the rare exceptions).

Our guts show that frugivory is where we're centred at, but we can thrive on a wide variety of diets.

Yes, again, humans can “thrive” on meat-based diets as long as one can avoid developing the cancers associated with eating meat, and the high cholesterol, and the increased mortality, and make sure that the meat is well-cooked since humans, unlike all animals biologically adapted to eat other mammals, have a gastric pH too high to kill deadly bacteria found in animal flesh.

Right. OK?

Obviously these aboriginals don't actually "thrive" on their meat-heavy diet, at least not as well as they could thrive on a vegetarian diet. Right?

Fallback foods are those eaten as a fallback.

Do you disagree that fall-back foods are generally those to which an animal develops biological adaptations for eating and maintaining health?

Primary dietary component

What does that mean? Animal flesh has not been a primary food for humans generally.

How not? It occurs throughout human society

That some event has occurred is definitely a trivial sense of the term "natural".

Nous, do you seriously believe the human is not naturally adapted to being able to thrive on meat as part of its diet if needed?

When is eating animal flesh ever "needed"? When someone is about to die from starvation?

I'm saying that (as far as I know) hominids have no biological adaptations toward omnivory, in order to eat animal flesh as a significant (>10%) of their diet and remain healthy compared to those who do not each such a diet. Obviously human meat-eaters do not "thrive" compared to vegetarians.

 

[Kirran]

So according to your definition, cats are omnivores and deer are omnivores. According to your definition, there are only a couple of mammal species that are not omnivores (e.g., anteaters would be one of the rare exceptions).

Yes, again, humans can “thrive” on meat-based diets as long as one can avoid developing the cancers associated with eating meat, and the high cholesterol, and the increased mortality, and make sure that the meat is well-cooked since humans, unlike all animals biologically adapted to eat other mammals, have a gastric pH too high to kill deadly bacteria found in animal flesh.

Obviously these aboriginals don't actually "thrive" on their meat-heavy diet, at least not as well as they could thrive on a vegetarian diet. Right?

Do you disagree that fall-back foods are generally those to which an animal develops biological adaptations for eating and maintaining health?

What does that mean? Animal flesh has not been a primary food for humans generally.

That some event has occurred is definitely a trivial sense of the term "natural".

When is eating animal flesh ever "needed"? When someone is about to die from starvation?

I'm saying that (as far as I know) hominids have no biological adaptations toward omnivory, in order to eat animal flesh as a significant (>10%) of their diet and remain healthy compared to those who do not each such a diet. Obviously human meat-eaters do not "thrive" compared to vegetarians.

I'm giving up on this whole thing, because from my perspective you're very blatantly denying the most basic of scientific understanding of human evolution and anatomy.

As a strong advocate of the abolition of meat-eating, I think you're damaging the cause by peddling such easily ridiculed reasoning for something which has lots of genuine reasons for supporting.

@sayak83, do you have any interest at all in bringing up some points on the subject of humans being omnivorous rather than herbivorous?

 

[sayak83]

I'm giving up on this whole thing, because from my perspective you're very blatantly denying the most basic of scientific understanding of human evolution and anatomy.

As a strong advocate of the abolition of meat-eating, I think you're damaging the cause by peddling such easily ridiculed reasoning for something which has lots of genuine reasons for supporting.

@sayak83, do you have any interest at all in bringing up some points on the subject of humans being omnivorous rather than herbivorous?

Take a look.
Earliest Evidence for Human Hunting Found

I support a move to eventual vegetarianism for reasons concerning animal cruelty and ecological sustainability (unless one can economically grow meat tissue directly...which is quite possible). But the idea that ancient humans did not eat meat is nonsense.

 

[Kirran]

Take a look.
Earliest Evidence for Human Hunting Found

I support a move to eventual vegetarianism for reasons concerning animal cruelty and ecological sustainability (unless one can economically grow meat tissue directly...which is quite possible). But the idea that ancient humans did not eat meat is nonsense.

Our views are identical often enough it gets boring!