Humans are naturally plant-eaters

This is becoming a hot debate now!

Honestly it all comes down to your preference and how you percieve your own lifestyle. If eating carbs, protein meat or whatever works for you, then dont bother getting caught up in a debate.

No one needs a "scientific" explaination to prove whats right or wrong. Eating plants is natural, but so is eating meat. There are millions of Predators out there hunting to survive another day by satisfying their hunger. There are also millions of Herbavoirs out there eating plants like a fat boy eating cake.

No science or someone should have to tell you whats right or wrong because, each and everyone one of us in this debate no whats right or wrong, also we know what suits our lifestyle.

The OP is not stating that everyone here should go out and naw on tree bark andd eat grass. She/He is just giving an explanation like the scientists you listen too. Its an opinion at best, take it or leave but in my Opionion dont cut it up.. We are bigger then that, no one is telling anyone whats better; to eat plants or meat.

Its a preference! Fact is, we CAN live off both and be healthy thats the beautiful part about being human

Good Day
Kelliott

Also would like to throw in the idea that we can ALSO survive on bug collection.. Things such as; grubs, worms, ants, spiders etc... I no its GROSS

But they too are packed in protien and great vitamins. The Earth is full of sources, our job is too go and and get them.. (we leave it to the farmers though...) .. poor farmers..

reply to post by stumason

One potential ancestral purpose put forth by Charles Darwin[4] was that the appendix was used for digesting leaves as primates. It may be a vestigial organ, evolutionary baggage, of ancient humans that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. Evidence can be seen in herbivorous animals such as the koala. The cecum of the koala is very long, enabling it to host bacteria specific for cellulose breakdown. Human ancestors may have also relied upon this system and lived on a diet rich in foliage.

The appendix which no longer functions in humans was probably what allowed us to efficiently extract protein from plant matter.

As humans dont have any natural weapons to hunt with it follows that they cant hunt without weapons which were not utilised until the stone age. By this time the body of the human was almost fully evolved.

What animals do you suppose humans were able to hunt and kill without weapons? It is quite logical that humans could not have eaten much if any meat before the development of weapons.

Originally posted by LUXUS
The appendix which no longer functions in humans was probably what allowed us to efficiently extract protein from plant matter.

There are as many theories as to the actual function of the appendix as fish in the sea. Nothing is certain, as unlike most other vestigal organs in humans or other animals, it doesn't seem to have been co-opted into any other use and is seemingly functionless.

Also, you have yet to provide any proof or even an idea as to how eating meat affected the genome.

Originally posted by LUXUS
As humans dont have any natural weapons to hunt with it follows that they cant hunt without weapons which were not utilised until the stone age. By this time the body of the human was almost fully evolved.

Then you obviously know little to nothing about Human evolution.

We started off our evolution as something akin to small monkies, which would have fed in much the same way as modern primates. Chimps, bonobos and others all hunt without tools and do so successfully. They also lack these "predatory" tools you claim as necessary and rely on team work and brute strength to bring down smaller prey.

As "humans" (it's such a catch all term for a long lineage of different species) evolved, brain power increased. There is evidence that humans as far back as 400,000 years ago (way before Home Sapiens evolved) used fire and Home Erectus (around from 1.8 million years ago) used stone tools, as did earlier homonids going back as far as 2.6 million years. I could go on, but I think I have made my point. Look it up, educate yourself.

Originally posted by LUXUS
What animals do you suppose humans were able to hunt and kill without weapons?

"We" were eating meat from back in the days of Australopithecus. Evidence suggest that they consumed meat based on isotopes found in their bones. They supplemented their largely frugivore diet with meat from other animals. They and other human ancestors hunted like modern primates. Like I said, they manage fine without weapons. Even so, stone tools were around from 2.6 million years ago, a long time before Home Sapiens ever emerged.

Originally posted by LUXUS
It is quite logical that humans could not have eaten much if any meat before the development of weapons.

It is only "logical" to assume that if you don't know what you're talking about.

reply to post by Vandalour


Animals evolved with Canine teeth to tear meat. When you cite animals that have canine teeth who have a 90% plant diet that doesn't mean anything.

Omnivores eat anything like grass, meat, berries & nuts. A bear eats meat when they find it or can kill it but their diet consists 90% or more on plants and berried. Why? because Omnivores are opportunistic eaters. They eat whatever they find. Plants are easier to come across so they eat more of them.

If we were made to be only plant eaters then we would most likely have 4 stomachs like a cow to better digest grasses and we would have all flat teeth like molars to chew the grasses.

humans don't get heart disease, overweight and other diseases from eating meat. They get all that from eating FAT processed meat. try eating wild game like rabbit, Elk & Venison. That's all we eat and our cholesterol is extremely low, weight is normal & heart is healthy.

A nice Elk steak is good for you..... A Big Mac is not good for you.....PERIOD.

I love this topic.

"Hey everybody, make the same life choices as me or else there's something wrong with you!"

Don't be such a judgmental know-it-all.

Here's a joke for ya:

How can you tell who the vegan is at your party?


Don't worry, they'll tell YOU.

There wouldn't be any need for this debate if we all lived like Ted Nugent! haha

reply to post by Vandalour


Plants are sentient beings too, they have feelings as well. Stop eating everything and go on a sun diet, it isn't necessary to eat anything. Look up ancient traditions such as sun gazing which has numerous names by many old cultures. There's people who still do it today and you can read or listen/watch their feedback. Sun gazing has many great benefits, research it yourself. Although I personally haven't sun gazed enough to reap full benefits, I have stared at the sun long enough to where our brainwashed society members would say i should have eye damage or be blind. That's clearly not the case though, I do warn you not to overdue it as you can do with anything, i.e. water intoxication.

reply to post by 4stral4pprentice


This is asking people to go out and get skin or eye cancer. Well done for making possibly the least responsible post I have ever seen in my life. Speaking as someone who has extremely light sensitive skin, I am appalled that you would allow your mere opinion to become a suggestion, which persons less intelligent might take as a good idea to try. Consequences. Think about them.

reply to post by Sly1one


Never been "emo", and I don't even like coffee.

Maybe you would accept me if I had missing teeth and bib overalls (only one hooked)


Regardless, taking advantage of the weak doesn't make you tough. Quite the opposite.

And it's not crazy to say humans were naturally suppose to be vegetarians. take a bite out of an unseasoned steak and tell me how that goes. The truth is we can make a pile of skit taste good if we season it correctly.
A proper vegetarian diet is proven (yes, proven without a doubt 100% fact) to be healthier. Usually animals tend to eat what is healthiest for them. And yes, we are animals as much as you won't admit that. Theres no arguing otherwise.

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by stumason

 

One potential ancestral purpose put forth by Charles Darwin[4] was that the appendix was used for digesting leaves as primates. It may be a vestigial organ, evolutionary baggage, of ancient humans that has degraded down to nearly nothing over the course of evolution. Evidence can be seen in herbivorous animals such as the koala. The cecum of the koala is very long, enabling it to host bacteria specific for cellulose breakdown. Human ancestors may have also relied upon this system and lived on a diet rich in foliage.

The appendix which no longer functions in humans was probably what allowed us to efficiently extract protein from plant matter.

As humans dont have any natural weapons to hunt with it follows that they cant hunt without weapons which were not utilised until the stone age. By this time the body of the human was almost fully evolved.

What animals do you suppose humans were able to hunt and kill without weapons? It is quite logical that humans could not have eaten much if any meat before the development of weapons.

edit on 23-1-2011 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

I agree 100%. If we were naturally omnivores, we would have the ability to chase down prey. We simply don't because we were gatherers.

Knowing we could never chase an animal, if humans were "naturally omnivores" we would of had to been scavengers which is simply ludicrous. We humans get diarrhea from bad fast food, try eating a rotting corpse and see how that works out.

Originally posted by The_Zomar
reply to post by Sly1one

 

And it's not crazy to say humans were naturally suppose to be vegetarians. take a bite out of an unseasoned steak and tell me how that goes. The truth is we can make a pile of skit taste good if we season it correctly.
A proper vegetarian diet is proven (yes, proven without a doubt 100% fact) to be healthier. Usually animals tend to eat what is healthiest for them. And yes, we are animals as much as you won't admit that. Theres no arguing otherwise.

One reason for the success of humanity's evolution was (and continues to be) its adaptibility. When the crops wouldn't grow, we found a way to meet our nutritional needs. If this meant eating a rump roast, we ate it. We recognized the sustenance inherent in the consuming of other animals by observation and experience.

We saw one animal consume another, and we understood why when there was no grain to eat. Yes, humans are primarily herbivores, but our intelligence, mandated by necessity, have realized the value of meat. We are physically developed to eat plants, but our intellect knows this is not always possible. Sometimes we are forced into other sources of sustenance.

Eat meat only when necessary, which instance is usually rare, but have no guilt about doing so.

"This is necessary. Life feeds on life."

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I once saw a documentary that claimed that eating cooked meat had a major role in human advancement. Being able to digest food high in energy quickly allowed us more time and strength to perform more tasks, hence it helped us develop quicker. Im not denying we are naturally plant eaters , but somewhere along the line we discovered the delights of cooked meat and used it to our advantage.

edit on 21-1-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

I'm yet to take any definite sides in this issue, but I would suppose that "the eating of anything cooked" - was what indeed has had an enormous effect in the development of a human culture.

We might find some answers to this issue by looking at the diets of Aboriginals, and see how they - who are most attuned to the nature - nourish themselves.

I would also as a general statement suggest that the most natural diet to a human being, would consist somewhat 80% of deliciously prepared vegetables, and 20% meat (of animal that has lived a happy life, like fish in the sea).

edit: But I must say, there was many points right on target in the article - haven't read it yet fully, and I suggest the article from the first post to everyone.

reply to post by The_Zomar

You can't find a reliable study that conclusively proves that meat does not cause heart disease or cancer because it has been proven multiple times that it has...

There is no such thing as SURE KNOWLEDGE in science.
It is always evolving and adjusting to NEW EVIDENCE.

As far as your incorrect assumption (did you even bother looking?) that there are no studies that conclude Meat does not cause Heart Disease or other ailments......

Gee, this took me 5 seconds to find...
NEW HARVARD STUDY: Red meat does not cause Heart Disease

Try not to ignore this, just because it does not specifically say study...in fact it shows how previous studies were flawed in many respects.....
Red Meat is Smart for the Heart.

reply to post by LUXUS


Humans were not designed...period. As for the amount of meat we eat...debatable.
Stuffing yourself with too much of any particular kind of food can cause health problems.

Getting too much fiber (you know the stuff that vegetables are full of) makes food move through the intestines too fast. You end up absorbing less nutrients and starve yourself.

I would say that modern food processing is more a culprit than the amount of meat.

reply to post by Kailassa


That diet only worked because the Human body stores up B12.
That is what prevented health problems caused by lack of meat or dairy intake.

If you stuck with it, you would have eventually run out of B12 and then problems would have started.

reply to post by The_Zomar


Human's aren't the fastest animals, but we can move quick (when healthy) for long periods of time. We don't need to chase down prey, we only need to follow/track it until it collapses from exhaustion.

Speed and power have nothing to do with whether an animal is more likely to be a carnivore, omnivore, or herbivore. There are many fast and slow examples of each kind.

Your conclusion about fast food and rotting corpses is incorrect, since it relies on your incorrect assumption that "chasing down" prey makes something an Carnivore/Omnivore.

Originally posted by Byteman
reply to post by The_Zomar

 

You can't find a reliable study that conclusively proves that meat does not cause heart disease or cancer because it has been proven multiple times that it has...

There is no such thing as SURE KNOWLEDGE in science.
It is always evolving and adjusting to NEW EVIDENCE.

As far as your incorrect assumption (did you even bother looking?) that there are no studies that conclude Meat does not cause Heart Disease or other ailments......

Gee, this took me 5 seconds to find...
NEW HARVARD STUDY: Red meat does not cause Heart Disease

Try not to ignore this, just because it does not specifically say study...in fact it shows how previous studies were flawed in many respects.....
Red Meat is Smart for the Heart.

edit on 23-1-2011 by Byteman because: (no reason given)

And it took me 5 seconds reading through your article, which proved yourself to be wrong.

"A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health suggests that the heart risk long associated with red meat comes mostly from processed varieties such as bacon, sausage, hot dogs and cold cuts—and not from steak, hamburgers and other non-processed cuts."

RED MEAT
RED MEAT
RED MEAT

Please show me where I said RED MEAT caused heart disease!

The article shows in fact heart disease does occur from meat.

Thanks for more information supporting my argument.

You guys are practically tripping over yourselves to prove my points.

reply to post by FunktheNWO


I wasn't going to post in this thread, but you sir pushed my hand. I am well aware that you understand that animals are alive. However are you aware that plants are alive, I know they don't look like it but I assure you any biologists will tell you they are alive. So I'm glad that you feel pure because you feel like there isn't anything in your system that is from another life for. You need to realize that the only way to not kill a single living thing to feel pure is Jainism. So bash the meat eaters all you want for slaughtering animals, but you slaughter plants which are alive too. Sleep well sir sleep well. Oh so you know I would bargain to say you have had animals in your diet for a while, ever eat marcoroni and cheese? Have a chocolate bar lately? They all have animal parts in them.

reply to post by NthOther


Everyone knows that the appendix doesn't really do much of anything nowadays except get you appendicitis. But do you know why we even have it in the first place?

It used to be a secondary stomach for hard vegetation, like thick leaves or stems. (imagine eating that hedge lining your neighbors yard) It's useless and vestigial nature means that we aren't equipped for eating that kind of plant anymore. A move away from being Herbivores.

Humans require vitamin B12 for proper brain functioning. The only natural place that Humans can get it is meat or dairy. How can an Herbivore species require something it can only get from animal sources?

These two facts mean that we are LESS capable of eating plants then we used to be, and that we (without modern technology) would die of anemia and damage our minds without eating meat/dairy. If you can't do it without technology, then how can it be our natural state?

Even without observation of carnivores, Humans would have eaten whatever was available. That means animals in the winter.

No one needs to limit themselves to eating meat "only when necessary", because we are not Herbivores in any capacity anymore. You would probably have to go as far back as our most recent fur covered primate ancestors to find an herbivore species, and even then they would probably also be insectivores.