# Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531>\
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\
**Created:** [November 22, 2010, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531 "2010-11-22T09:26:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 14

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/261 "2010-11-26T16:42:40Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> You fundamentally misunderstand evolution and natural selection.

My misunderstanding is that nature slowly weeds out dysfunctional traits over time in favor of functional ones. Over a long enough time frame even small things start to matter, a great example would be maybe an ant eaters long tongue, the ant eater can get enough ants to live, but given enough time the ant eater genome that can eat just a tiny bit more because of it’s longer tongue will be selected for.

That’s my flawed understanding of it.

```
I applied the same logic to human beings, in trying to understand the resulting health effects of meat, and ice mans apparent diet. (The diet which by the way I never disputed might be linked to salt, or modern preparation, or a great many other things.) 

```

I was asked to explain how I arrived at my conclusion. By someone, NOT go through the WHOLE SONG AND DANCE AGAIN.

They hoped to understand how I arrived at my conclusion. It started with Ice man. Really I’m blown away he did not eat crap loads of meat, I did not at all expect that. REPEAT, DID NOT EXPECT THAT.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/262 "2010-11-26T16:43:05Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> “In the pre-paradigmatic stage there is confusion as multiple paradigms are put forward by different schools of thought.”

The issue of whether human beings are (1) omnivores or (2) herbivores who eat a lot of meat is not a paradigmatic issue. It’s merely an _observational_ issue.

> [@](#):
>
> How to classify human beings, tons of discussion, run a google search. Two schools of thought on how to classify.

Have you given up on sentences? Would you care to complete these thoughts?

> [@](#):
>
> “We have some areas in which human beings are carnivores, and other areas in which human beings are herbivores, lots in the middle.”

Whom are you quoting here? Yourself? In any case, this sentence is complete nonsense. No humans are carnivores and no humans are herbivores. All humans are omnivores. Depending on their environment, they might choose sources of food in different proportions, but it doesn’t change their classification.

> [@](#):
>
> Not all living human beings can be classified as omnivores.

Wrong.

> [@](#):
>
> Further(more), technology confounds the situation.

It confounds nothing.

> [@](#):
>
> [http://flyproxy5.appspot.com/http/spittoon.23andme.com/2009/02/13/the-most-natural-human-diet-just-about-anything/](http://flyproxy5.appspot.com/http/spittoon.23andme.com/2009/02/13/the-most-natural-human-diet-just-about-anything/)

Do you read your links? The title of that article is “The Most Human Diet: Just About Anything.” And it includes this assertion:

> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps the most surprising conclusion was that — despite what some diet gurus may say — there is no “natural” human diet.

> [@](#):
>
> But yes by traditional logic/reasoning we are omnivores. When have I not said that?

You have failed to propose any other kind of logic/reasoning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/263 "2010-11-26T16:48:46Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> The issue of whether human beings are (1) omnivores or (2) herbivores who eat a lot of meat is not a paradigmatic issue. It’s merely an _observational_ issue.
> 
> Have you given up on sentences? Would you care to complete these thoughts?
> 
> Whom are you quoting here? Yourself? In any case, this sentence is complete nonsense. No humans are carnivores and no humans are herbivores. All humans are omnivores. Depending on their environment, they might choose sources of food in different proportions, but it doesn’t change their classification.
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> It confounds nothing.
> 
> Do you read your links? The title of that article is “The Most Human Diet: Just About Anything.” And it includes this assertion:
> 
> You have failed to propose any other kind of logic/reasoning.

I feel like this is our argument here.

```
Some one has picked up a rock, and I go "oh, you found a piece of obsidian". Then they go: "No, it's a rock."

```

That’s where I’m coming from at this point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/264 "2010-11-26T16:55:13Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> I feel like this is our argument here.
> 
> ```
> Some one has picked up a rock, and I go "oh, you found a piece of obsidian". Then they go: "No, it's a rock."
> 
> ```

This is how it goes:

SDMB: “It’s obsidian.”

JZ: “It’s granite.”

SDMB: Offers you the commonly understood definitions of granite and obsidian, how those definitions are based on objective standards, and how the rock meets the definitions of obsidian and not of granite.

JZ: Offers a bunch of references that support the argument that it _is_ obsidian. “See, there’s some confusion here.”

SDMB: What are you talking about? You just proved yourself wrong.

JZ: But there’s a problem here because I think people should be making countertops with this rock, and if we call it granite instead of obsidian, then that will strengthen my argument, because people like to make countertops out of granite.

SDMD: That’s not a scientific argument.

JZ: See? There’s a lot of confusion surrounding this issue.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\
**Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/265 "2010-11-26T19:39:38Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Does that address your question?

I guess it does, thanks.

But I still don’t really understand your tenacity with the argument. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen someone lose an argument _over such an extended period_, and still consider himself the winner.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/266 "2010-11-27T00:31:24Z")

</div>

> [@Mangetout](#):
>
> I guess it does, thanks.
> 
> But I still don’t really understand your tenacity with the argument. I just don’t think I’ve ever seen someone lose an argument _over such an extended period_, and still consider himself the winner.

I don’t. But if someone want’s a particular tangent of my reasoning clarified, I’ll at least give it a shot.

But if you want a better window into how I reason, look up E-prime, as a subset of the english language. You might find some of it interesting. Some people find it valuable, some are highly critical. It deals highly with the “is” statement in the english language.

If you are not familiar with it, I think you may again find it interesting, or at least get a kick out of it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/267 "2010-11-27T00:40:30Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> in trying to understand the resulting health effects of meat,

You haven’t proven there ARE any health effects from eating meat. Of all the cites you posted, I accepted only one- the one on kidney stones. Then, **Broomstick** posted a cite on how certain kinds of plant matter cause kidney stones.

So you have nothing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/268 "2010-11-27T00:56:41Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> This is how it goes:
> 
> SDMB: “It’s obsidian.”
> 
> JZ: “It’s granite.”
> 
> SDMB: Offers you the commonly understood definitions of granite and obsidian, how those definitions are based on objective standards, and how the rock meets the definitions of obsidian and not of granite.
> 
> JZ: Offers a bunch of references that support the argument that it _is_ obsidian. “See, there’s some confusion here.”
> 
> SDMB: What are you talking about? You just proved yourself wrong.
> 
> JZ: But there’s a problem here because I think people should be making countertops with this rock, and if we call it granite instead of obsidian, then that will strengthen my argument, because people like to make countertops out of granite.
> 
> SDMD: That’s not a scientific argument.
> 
> JZ: See? There’s a lot of confusion surrounding this issue.

Well you see I was likening in my metaphor the word “rock” to our term “omnivore”.  
Obsidian, would be a theoretical subset of that term, to help identify different types of rocks.

There does appear to be that confusion, yes. Your point doesn’t quite yet grasp what I’m saying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/269 "2010-11-27T01:08:25Z")

</div>

> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> You haven’t proven there ARE any health effects from eating meat. Of all the cites you posted, I accepted only one- the one on kidney stones. Then, **Broomstick** posted a cite on how certain kinds of plant matter cause kidney stones.
> 
> So you have nothing.

"I applied the same logic to human beings, in trying to understand the resulting health effects of meat, and ice mans apparent diet. (The(health effects in modern) diet which by the way I never disputed might be linked to salt, or modern preparation, or a great many other things.) "

Several posts back.

Though I would say that the health effects of red meat seem to fall into common knowledge, to the point where the question the OP is based on actually points out that red meat is not good, and bases arguments on that. I’ll let that be my source.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/270 "2010-11-27T01:11:53Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Well you see I was likening in my metaphor the word “rock” to our term “omnivore”.  
> Obsidian, would be a theoretical subset of that term, to help identify different types of rocks.
> 
> There does appear to be that confusion, yes. Your point doesn’t quite yet grasp what I’m saying.

You’re the only one who is failing to grasp something here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/271 "2010-11-27T01:18:05Z")

</div>

> [@acsenray](#):
>
> You’re the only one who is failing to grasp something here.

Perhaps, will you point out to me what my point is so I have a better understanding of what I should be arguing.

Or more aptly, you seem to want some sort of admission. A blank “I’m wrong check”. I would need to know exactly what I’m wrong about to write it.

```
You all seem to be saying human beings are omnivores, I seem to be saying human beings are omnivores.  

Beyond that there have been a whole list of independent tangential arguments. Mostly about how I arrived at conclusions, then everyone says "oh no you did not arrive at that conclusion that way." As if that somehow changes the past.

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/272 "2010-11-27T01:51:17Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Though I would say that the health effects of red meat seem to fall into common knowledge, to the point where the question the OP is based on actually points out that red meat is not good, and bases arguments on that. I’ll let that be my source.

So you admit you have no source? No cite?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/273 "2010-11-27T02:29:54Z")

</div>

> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> So you admit you have no source? No cite?

> **[Red meat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat#Health_risks)**
>
> In the context of nutrition, red meat is defined as meat obtained from mammals, including beef, pork, lamb, mutton, veal, venison, and goat. Red meat does not necessarily appear red in color.   
> Red meat is a good source of protein, iron, zinc, and vitamins B1, B2, B6, and B12. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), unprocessed red meat probably causes cancer, particularly colorectal cancer. Studies have also linked red meat with higher risks of cardiovascular di...

As folks like to say “correlation is not causation”, so you will just have to draw your own conclusions.

> **[Probability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability)**
>
> Probability is a branch of mathematics and statistics concerning events and numerical descriptions of how likely they are to occur. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1; the larger the probability, the more likely an event is to occur.\[note 1\] This number is often expressed as a percentage (%), ranging from 0% to 100%. A simple example is the tossing of a fair (unbiased) coin. Since the coin is fair, the two outcomes ("heads" and "tails") are both equally probable; the p Th...

I recommend this as a helpful tool in doing just that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/274 "2010-11-27T06:43:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Originally Posted by **Exapno Mapcase**  
> No animal that can’t digest fiber is a herbivore. Humans can’t digest fiber. Therefore, humans are not herbivores. Mate.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> You are missing the entire purpose of CHEWING!

I failed to catch this earlier. In a word, no. Chewing does nothing to help humans digest cellulose, i.e. fiber. Humans are physically incapable of digesting it. Herbivores (i.e. ruminants) are able to digest cellulose, specifically because of the way their guts are built. The adaptation they have that lets them digest cellulose is bacteria in their guts that breaks the cellulose down. Humans can _eat_ cellulose, they can chew it to smithereens, and they can by doing so get access to materials inside the cellulose casings (e.g. corn germ inside the corn nugget), but humans cannot digest the cellulose - it passes through the gut forming that stuff called “fiber” that doctors tell you is good for your colon.

> [@DocCathode](#):
>
> Second, you CANNOT separate Homo Sapiens from tool use. The record shows that we evolved to use tools. Humans without tools have not existed for millions of years.

Techically, humans without tools have not existed, because tool use predates our being human (homo sapiens). But that’s a quibble, we have ancestors that did not use tools - somewhere before the split from chimpanzees, it seems. Bottom line, you are correct, we cannot separate humans from tool use because tool use came before humans. Humans are by nature tool users.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> In my mind the argument being made to me is it is okay to call all water features on a map a lake. What I’m suggesting is that I would identify the differentiation with different terms, to make the map more useful. If you cannot see the value of that, then yes you are correct.

Your analogy is faulty. A more correct analogy is that you are dissatisfied with the fact that the Great Lakes are very large bodies of water compared to a lot of other bodies of water that are called lakes. You think they are different enough that they shouldn’t be classified as the same thing, so instead of calling them lakes, you think we should call them little oceans. That will solve all the confusion.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Blake you are great at making long posts, but they carry little weight with me with out sources. Please make your clear point with evidence if you actually have a point. You don’t even have to quote me, make your point with your sources. Please.

Says the guy who doesn’t even read his own sources, and posts cites that say exactly the opposite of what he is arguing.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> That chimps are still primarily herbivores. Which is an accurate statement.

You are abusing the definitions of the words to create a use that makes you comfortable. You can factually say “Chimps eat primarily a vegetative diet” or you can list average percentages, but you cannot say they are “primarily herbivores” because they either are or are not herbivores.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> "The natural diet of a human being is primarily a herbivore diet.

You keep saying this without clearly defining any of the terms. How does one measure the “natural diet” of a human being? You keep trying to throw out cooking and tool use as if that is somehow not natural, but fail to accept that without tool use, we wouldn’t **be** humans. So either you are trying to look at some human predecessor that almost bore a resemblance to humans, if you squint, or else you are trying to imagine some alternate version of humanity that has the body style, brain, digestive tract, etc of humans but for some reason doesn’t use tools. Yeah, _that’s_ natural. :rolleyes:

And what is an herbivore diet? Clearly you really mean something more like “primarily a plant-based diet”, because you seem not to know what “herbivore” means.

> [@](#):
>
> I think its more accurate then just saying omnivore. The article the OP is on is 20 years old, and not up to speed with modern thinking on the issue. Applying the three prong classification system is generally correct, but as I’m trying to demonstrate, misleading.

You might have a valid point that “omnivore” is a very broad generalization between animals that eat only plant matter and digest cellulose, and animals that exclusively capture prey or carrion, and that it leaves a lot of fuzziness in there. Fine. But it is not helpful to decide to make the other two categories fuzzier so that the one in the middle covers less ground. Calling humans “primarily herbivores” is deciding the existing system is fuzzy, so you’re going to ignore one of the categories and move two a two pole system, where things are either mostly herbivores or mostly carnivores, and nothing in between. How exactly does that clear things up?

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> The debate seems to exhausted itself. I stand by my point, the classification is somewhat faulty. I still stand by my original post, and I feel it is still a reasonable academic debate. One could make a better measuring stick.

If one believes the current system is inadequate, one is invited to suggest a new labeling system, and provide rationale and justification for how the system works, and why it works better. But providing a new system is more than just dropping one of the categories and abusing the existing system descriptions.

> [@](#):
>
> I did at one point suggest that the term omnivore was ineffective because it may lead people to false conclusions about “how much of what they should eat in their daily lives to maintain health” because the term does not take that into account. Which may have not been appropriate to the thread.

It’s not that it might or might not be inappropriate for the thread. The problem is that you do not seem to understand the existing terms or at least are unwilling to use them correctly, you are providing evidence to support your position that refutes it, you obstinately refuse to change your mind about anything or admit gross errors and then somehow seem to think you are winning the debate.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> You try debating this position, see how you do!

You want us to try debating a position that the evidence doesn’t support and we don’t accept, and you wonder that we wouldn’t do any better? Of course not, it’s a faulty position.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> I considered the role of technology, culture, and health in making that classification. And it intuitively did not sit well with me. Technology is a heavy factor in the human omnivore, where in the bear omnivore it is not.

Technology is a heavy factor is us being human. Without out it, we don’t exist, so it’s unfair to omit technology for humans just like it is unfair to omit dam building from beavers or claws for a bear.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Some one has picked up a rock, and I go “oh, you found a piece of obsidian”. Then they go: “No, it’s a rock.”
> 
> That’s where I’m coming from at this point.

That may be how you see it, but it is an inaccurate metaphor. A more accurate metaphor is that someone picks up a rock and you say, “oh, you found a plant”. They go, “No, I found a rock.” And then you try to argue, “It may appear to be a rock, but I think it’s really more like a plant.”

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> Well you see I was likening in my metaphor the word “rock” to our term “omnivore”.  
> Obsidian, would be a theoretical subset of that term, to help identify different types of rocks.
> 
> There does appear to be that confusion, yes. Your point doesn’t quite yet grasp what I’m saying.

No, he grasps what you are saying, he just disagrees with _your_ metaphor and is providing one of his own.

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> You all seem to be saying human beings are omnivores, I seem to be saying human beings are omnivores.

Well, _now_ you’re saying that, but you’ve spent the better part of this thread trying to say that humans aren’t really omnivores.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/275 "2010-11-27T07:15:54Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> I failed to catch this earlier. In a word, no. Chewing does nothing to help humans digest cellulose, i.e. fiber. Humans are physically incapable of digesting it. Herbivores (i.e. ruminants) are able to digest cellulose, specifically because of the way their guts are built. The adaptation they have that lets them digest cellulose is bacteria in their guts that breaks the cellulose down. Humans can _eat_ cellulose, they can chew it to smithereens, and they can by doing so get access to materials inside the cellulose casings (e.g. corn germ inside the corn nugget), but humans cannot digest the cellulose - it passes through the gut forming that stuff called “fiber” that doctors tell you is good for your colon.
> 
> Techically, humans without tools have not existed, because tool use predates our being human (homo sapiens). But that’s a quibble, we have ancestors that did not use tools - somewhere before the split from chimpanzees, it seems. Bottom line, you are correct, we cannot separate humans from tool use because tool use came before humans. Humans are by nature tool users.
> 
> Your analogy is faulty. A more correct analogy is that you are dissatisfied with the fact that the Great Lakes are very large bodies of water compared to a lot of other bodies of water that are called lakes. You think they are different enough that they shouldn’t be classified as the same thing, so instead of calling them lakes, you think we should call them little oceans. That will solve all the confusion.
> 
> Says the guy who doesn’t even read his own sources, and posts cites that say exactly the opposite of what he is arguing.
> 
> You are abusing the definitions of the words to create a use that makes you comfortable. You can factually say “Chimps eat primarily a vegetative diet” or you can list average percentages, but you cannot say they are “primarily herbivores” because they either are or are not herbivores.
> 
> You keep saying this without clearly defining any of the terms. How does one measure the “natural diet” of a human being? You keep trying to throw out cooking and tool use as if that is somehow not natural, but fail to accept that without tool use, we wouldn’t **be** humans. So either you are trying to look at some human predecessor that almost bore a resemblance to humans, if you squint, or else you are trying to imagine some alternate version of humanity that has the body style, brain, digestive tract, etc of humans but for some reason doesn’t use tools. Yeah, _that’s_ natural. :rolleyes:
> 
> And what is an herbivore diet? Clearly you really mean something more like “primarily a plant-based diet”, because you seem not to know what “herbivore” means.
> 
> You might have a valid point that “omnivore” is a very broad generalization between animals that eat only plant matter and digest cellulose, and animals that exclusively capture prey or carrion, and that it leaves a lot of fuzziness in there. Fine. But it is not helpful to decide to make the other two categories fuzzier so that the one in the middle covers less ground. Calling humans “primarily herbivores” is deciding the existing system is fuzzy, so you’re going to ignore one of the categories and move two a two pole system, where things are either mostly herbivores or mostly carnivores, and nothing in between. How exactly does that clear things up?
> 
> If one believes the current system is inadequate, one is invited to suggest a new labeling system, and provide rationale and justification for how the system works, and why it works better. But providing a new system is more than just dropping one of the categories and abusing the existing system descriptions.
> 
> It’s not that it might or might not be inappropriate for the thread. The problem is that you do not seem to understand the existing terms or at least are unwilling to use them correctly, you are providing evidence to support your position that refutes it, you obstinately refuse to change your mind about anything or admit gross errors and then somehow seem to think you are winning the debate.
> 
> You want us to try debating a position that the evidence doesn’t support and we don’t accept, and you wonder that we wouldn’t do any better? Of course not, it’s a faulty position.
> 
> Technology is a heavy factor is us being human. Without out it, we don’t exist, so it’s unfair to omit technology for humans just like it is unfair to omit dam building from beavers or claws for a bear.
> 
> That may be how you see it, but it is an inaccurate metaphor. A more accurate metaphor is that someone picks up a rock and you say, “oh, you found a plant”. They go, “No, I found a rock.” And then you try to argue, “It may appear to be a rock, but I think it’s really more like a plant.”
> 
> No, he grasps what you are saying, he just disagrees with _your_ metaphor and is providing one of his own.
> 
> Well, _now_ you’re saying that, but you’ve spent the better part of this thread trying to say that humans aren’t really omnivores.

There is so much here sorry if I get this out of order.

You make some good points, and by and large do understand my point about the classification system. It’s unlikely that even if I do come up with a great one though, biologists, or dietary evolutionists will rush to adopt it. I lack the credentials to do so.  
How about: “techno-omnivoria”

Your right again, I did at times use herbivore in the place of high inclination towards vegetation, where I should not have.

I would like to point out I said you cannot separate humans from their culture(technology) from post one.

You yourself say they are called the “Great lakes”, why do you suppose someone made the distinction of calling them “great”.

```
I cited ice man as my source. He lived on a primarily plant based diet based on evidence did he not?
 Kindly, rather then select bits and pieces from all over these pages and pages, which may be taken out of context, instead why not look at the OP, and see what is actually there.   

```

Do you actually believe that is me saying that human beings are not physically omnivorous, or have not been.

You may find this odd, but because others are arguing at me as though my argument is “humans are not omnivores”, that doesn’t make it my point. Nore was it ever the point of the post.

```
 If anything my point was a conclusion on something I said would be "impossible" to actually know.

The only final thing I'll say is I still find it shocking that the Ice Man would be found to eat a mostly vegetation diet, doesn't that seem odd to you too?

 You made some great points. Good post, thanks.

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/276 "2010-11-28T05:49:59Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> How about: “techno-omnivoria”

In what way is that a useful classification system? What does it tell us? You seem to be focusing on the tool part rather than the diet part. Like I said, for a different classification system to be useful, you must explain what is tells us, what makes it better, and how the pieces fit together. Just saying “humans deserve their own category” is pointless.

> [@](#):
>
> You yourself say they are called the “Great lakes”, why do you suppose someone made the distinction of calling them “great”.

What is your point? I’m not arguing that the Great Lakes are in a lot of ways different than smaller lakes. I did not argue that they might deserve a term of their own. What I pointed out is that it is not helpful to exchange one broad categorical term for a different one, especially one that is incorrect. Calling them “Great Lakes” emphasizes that they are largely the same as other fresh water accummulations, but differ in scale to the point of standing out. Calling them “little oceans” would incorrectly classify them with salt water bodies, and suffer from other geographical differences. One is accurate if broad, the other is inaccurate.

> [@](#):
>
> Do you actually believe that is me saying that human beings are not physically omnivorous, or have not been.

Looking at the OP, what I see is you trying to make the claim that somehow humans would naturally eat a vegetarian diet except _something_ intervened and _forced_ us to eat meat, so now we don’t know any better and eat meat instead of our presumed “natural” diet. Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that humans would be better and happier if we returned to this “natural” vegetarian diet. It was in refutation of this position that all the claims about humans being “omnivore” vs “herbivore” or “frugivore” or whatever arose.

> [@](#):
>
> The only final thing I’ll say is I still find it shocking that the Ice Man would be found to eat a mostly vegetation diet, doesn’t that seem odd to you too?

Well yes, because I much prefer meat.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/277 "2010-11-28T09:50:29Z")

</div>

> [@JZesbaugh](#):
>
> ```
> The only final thing I'll say is I still find it shocking that the Ice Man would be found to eat a mostly vegetation diet, doesn't that seem odd to you too?
> 
> ```

Not at all. Until modern times meat was much harder to get most places than it is now; everyone ate less meat not because they didn’t _like_ meat but because they couldn’t get it. The Iceman couldn’t just stroll down to the supermarket and buy meat.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/278 "2010-11-28T09:56:20Z")

</div>

> [@Irishman](#):
>
> In what way is that a useful classification system? What does it tell us? You seem to be focusing on the tool part rather than the diet part. Like I said, for a different classification system to be useful, you must explain what is tells us, what makes it better, and how the pieces fit together. Just saying “humans deserve their own category” is pointless.
> 
> What is your point? I’m not arguing that the Great Lakes are in a lot of ways different than smaller lakes. I did not argue that they might deserve a term of their own. What I pointed out is that it is not helpful to exchange one broad categorical term for a different one, especially one that is incorrect. Calling them “Great Lakes” emphasizes that they are largely the same as other fresh water accummulations, but differ in scale to the point of standing out. Calling them “little oceans” would incorrectly classify them with salt water bodies, and suffer from other geographical differences. One is accurate if broad, the other is inaccurate.
> 
> Looking at the OP, what I see is you trying to make the claim that somehow humans would naturally eat a vegetarian diet except _something_ intervened and _forced_ us to eat meat, so now we don’t know any better and eat meat instead of our presumed “natural” diet. Furthermore, you seem to be claiming that humans would be better and happier if we returned to this “natural” vegetarian diet. It was in refutation of this position that all the claims about humans being “omnivore” vs “herbivore” or “frugivore” or whatever arose.
> 
> Well yes, because I much prefer meat.

Actually that intervention would be tool use and tradition but that does NOT present facts one way or the other. But yes that would be my theory, or opinion on the matter. If you have the data which I said would be pretty much impossible to obtain, because it depends on a “magical situation” you may show me this “fact” that can shift my “opinion”. But since that data would be impossible to obtain, we are left ONLY with speculation. And you my friend are free to speculate any way you like.

I don’t see anything about “better” or “happier” there.

As for your notations on classifications, It’s really not an exact science. It is done different ways for different reasons to clarify information. Why do you seem to think I should be personally responsible for creating a new system? I find human beings to be exceptional animals in many areas, if you feel diet is not one, again that is your opinion, which you are welcome too. You seem to reject the frugivore, and garinivore classifications as well. Which you are again welcome to do.

Calling iceman omnivoric, fails to communicate as much information about his diet then “primarily plant based”. As a communication tool, in my mind is less effective in conveying what he ate.

You seem to be very interested in the concept, perhaps you would like to come up with a more apt classification system. Classification is in the end is just a tool for communication. It is not something chiseled into stone tablets, that must be adhered to.

You’re right again, calling them little oceans would not account for the salt content would it. So its probably would not be wise to call them little oceans.

Since you are so interested in lakes here is an article on all the different ways they can be classified.

[http://www.mlswa.org/lkclassif1.htm](http://www.mlswa.org/lkclassif1.htm)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/279 "2010-11-29T03:03:32Z")

</div>

> [@Mister\_Owl](#):
>
> Wow, I finally had to quickly scan over the last couple of pages. And still I have to ask; y’all know you are being “played” right?

I see no reason to suppose that. I’ve dealt with some Shakespeare-deniers, for example, for over a decade.

_«Noi siam venuti al loco ov’ i’ t’ho detto  
che tu vedrai le genti dolorose  
c’hanno perduto il ben de l’intelletto»._

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/280 "2010-11-29T16:56:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t see anything about “better” or “happier” there.

You did specifically argue it would be _healthier_ - so really you’re just quibbling over word choice here.

I have no argument that at some point our ancestors ate a more plant-based diet than most humans do now. There is some scientific interest in studying why they changed diets, because it relates to theories about our brain development and cognitive abilities. But what stands out to me in your posts are comments that indicate you place some sort of value judgement on that dietary change. You seem to think that it was a bad thing that our ancestors changed diets. You seem to be arguing that because some earlier stage of ancestor ate mostly plants (with maybe a bit of scavenging or bug hunting or whatnot) that that dictates what the modern human diet _should_ be. But that’s no different than arguing that because at one time our ancestors fish that we should only eat what fish eat - which is typically other fish.

> [@](#):
>
> Why do you seem to think I should be personally responsible for creating a new system?

You are mistaken - I do not think you are required to create a new system, I am merely pointing out that it is you who take issue with the existing system, and are butchering the use of terms to make your case. If you feel so strongly that the current system is not adequate, then it is up to you to make that case, or be assured that people will continue to use the existing system that you feel is inadequate. But nobody is going to accept you abusing the words as they exist because you don’t like them the way they are.

> [@](#):
>
> Calling iceman omnivoric, fails to communicate as much information about his diet then “primarily plant based”. As a communication tool, in my mind is less effective in conveying what he ate.

I have no argument with saying “primarily plant based” - that is what the evidence shows according to your cite. Any meaning that can be discerned from the diet of one individual is still debatable, certainly.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=13)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=15)