# Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature? **URL:** \ **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:** 8
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/141 "2010-11-24T04:46:42Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Which is why I likened the supermarket model to picking berries. The same hunter gather work is not involved, to get the “reward”. If there was a proper abundance of vegetative foods, it’s hard to see why anything would go to the extra effort to chase something down. Meat tastes good? But beyond that - you continue to ignore that some types of meat - such as mussels - are easily plucked from the shoreline with no more effort than picking berries. And often less chance of getting your arm scratched by thorns. Again, part of your pattern of conveniently disregarding anything that doesn’t support your pre-conceived position. You don’t want to let facts get in the way of your assertions, right? ---
**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 24, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/142 "2010-11-24T04:54:23Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > But that’s what the scientific study says. Are you disputing that? You could dissect their methods I suppose, find fallacy there? Is that your inference? It says what? “JZesbaugh’s assertion is correct”? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/143 "2010-11-24T04:54:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Meat tastes good? > > But beyond that - you continue to ignore that some types of meat - such as mussels - are easily plucked from the shoreline with no more effort than picking berries. And often less chance of getting your arm scratched by thorns. > > Again, part of your pattern of conveniently disregarding anything that doesn’t support your pre-conceived position. You don’t want to let facts get in the way of your assertions, right? Muscles would be available, as would as I said marrow as well. Those would present good opportunities. And in the instance of costal people, muscles might even become a staple. Well until the muscles were depopulated so I’d guess short term, a more renewable food source might be requisite, to support large populations. Great point. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/144 "2010-11-24T04:58:17Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > It says what? “JZesbaugh’s assertion is correct”? I don’t think so. Well the diet suggested seems to favor vegetation. But it’s only one instance. It says my assertion is debatable. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/145 "2010-11-24T05:22:49Z")
You keep bringing up the Ice Man, yet your own cites show that the man had meat in his stomach. He was wearing leather for the gods sake! I truly don’t understand what point you think you are making with all of this, but whatever it is, it’s not working. -XT ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/146 "2010-11-24T05:37:05Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You keep bringing up the Ice Man, yet your own cites show that the man had meat in his stomach. He was wearing leather for the gods sake! I truly don’t understand what point you think you are making with all of this, but whatever it is, it’s not working. > > -XT "The natural diet of a human being is primarily a herbivore diet. 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. That’s pretty much it." Being snowed in does lend to being pretty bored. The Neolithic revolution was based on cereal crops, not animal husbandry, which was a by-product. Husbandry is not primary, it’s secondary. Which shows why we are built/selected for cereal/starch foods, not meat. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/147 "2010-11-24T05:46:51Z")
[QUOTE=JZesbaugh] The natural diet of a human being is primarily a herbivore diet. [/QUOTE] Ok, but so what? Humans aren’t herbivores. We’re omnivores. Saying that ‘natural humans’ (whatever that means) eat ‘primarily a herbivore diet’ just means that early human hunter/gatherer societies subsisted mainly on plants except when they could get better higher value foods such as meat. Which is just another way of saying that humans are omnivorous, eating basically anything they could get. > [@](#): > > I think its more accurate then just saying omnivore. But, you know, it isn’t. It’s more ‘accurate’ to simply state the truth instead of trying to twist and turn and play a lot of semantic word games. Humans are NOT herbivores. We were never herbivores for the entire existence of our species, and not even in the more recent ancestor species we evolved from. > [@](#): > > The Neolithic revolution was based on cereal crops, not animal husbandry, which was a by-product. Again, so what? Neolithic communities still ate meat. They were still omnivores, no matter how you twist your definitions. > [@](#): > > Husbandry is not primary, it’s secondary. Even if we accept this as true (and it’s not…it depends on the community), again…so what? They still used animal products to supplement their diet. They REQUIRED animal products to live. They were omnivores not herbivores. > [@](#): > > Which shows why we are built/selected for cereal/starch foods, not meat. Good grief. No, it doesn’t show that at all. It shows that humans used different strategies to survive, and were able to access varied food types in making up their diet. Which…makes…them…OMNIVORES! Sheesh. -XT ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/148 "2010-11-24T05:55:36Z")
Let’s define “natural human” for the sake of this as Neolithic revolution. We’re seeing more complex division of labor, record keeping, lots of things that are defining to society today. A large enough turning point to place a marker there. Objections? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/149 "2010-11-24T06:06:49Z")
I’m unsure how you think [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution) will augment your case, or why you think that ‘natural humans’ would equal basically modern human societies, but if you want to set some sort of arbitrary boundary and make your case, feel free. You should know a couple of things about ‘Neolithic revolution’ societies though: > [@](#): > > Domestication of animals > > When hunter-gathering began to be replaced by sedentary food production it became more profitable to keep animals close at hand. Therefore, it became necessary to bring animals permanently to their settlements, although in many cases there was a distinction between relatively sedentary farmers and nomadic herders. The animals’ size, temperament, diet, mating patterns, and life span were factors in the desire and success in domesticating animals. Animals that provided milk, such as cows and goats, offered a source of protein that was renewable and therefore quite valuable. The animal’s ability as a worker (for example ploughing or towing), as well as a food source, also had to be taken into account. Besides being a direct source of food, certain animals could provide leather, wool, hides, and fertilizer. Some of the earliest domesticated animals included dogs (about 15,000 years ago),[20] sheep, goats, cows, and pigs. > [@](#): > > The Middle East served as the source for many animals that could be domesticated, such as goats and pigs. This area was also the first region to domesticate the Dromedary Camel. The presence of these animals gave the region a large advantage in cultural and economic development. As the climate in the Middle East changed, and became drier, many of the farmers were forced to leave, taking their domesticated animals with them. It was this massive emigration from the Middle East that would later help distribute these animals to the rest of Afroeurasia. This emigration was mainly on an east-west axis of similar climates, as crops usually have a narrow optimal climatic range outside of which they cannot grow for reasons of light or rain changes. For instance, wheat does not normally grow in tropical climates, just like tropical crops such as bananas do not grow in colder climates. Some authors like Jared Diamond postulated that this East-West axis is the main reason why plant and animal domestication spread so quickly from the Fertile Crescent to the rest of Eurasia and North Africa, while it did not reach through the North-South axis of Africa to reach the Mediterranean climates of South Africa, where temperate crops were successfully imported by ships in the last 500 years.[citation needed] The African Zebu is a separate breed of cattle that was better suited to the hotter climates of central Africa than the fertile-crescent domesticated bovines. North and South America were similarly separated by the narrow tropical Isthmus of Panama, that prevented the andes llama to be exported to the Mexican plateau. Physiologically speaking, Neolithic humans were basically the same hardware we have today, at least wrt our dietary needs. Depending on the society and the strata one occupied, they probably ate MORE meat than our hunter/gatherer ancestors did, since more was available. However, if you think you can somehow make your case using them as ‘natural humans’, as I said, go for it. -XT ---
**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 24, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/150 "2010-11-24T06:29:47Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Well the diet suggested seems to favor vegetation. But it’s only one instance. It says my assertion is debatable. In fact, it doesn’t even tell you the customary, preferred, or “natural” diet for that particular individual. Can you not conceive of factors related to a guy being preserved in a glacier that might affect the evidence of his diet? ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/151 "2010-11-24T07:03:21Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > In fact, it doesn’t even tell you the customary, preferred, or “natural” diet for that particular individual. Can you not conceive of factors related to a guy being preserved in a glacier that might affect the evidence of his diet? Yes admittedly so, hair as I understand it would be the best indication. It would document his consumption pattern over the ENTIRE period his hair had grown. Hair analysis is an interesting study. You are looking at the obvious while ignoring the subtle. (And yes I appreciate the irony of this statement) ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/152 "2010-11-24T07:08:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m unsure how you think [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution) will augment your case, or why you think that ‘natural humans’ would equal basically modern human societies, but if you want to set some sort of arbitrary boundary and make your case, feel free. You should know a couple of things about ‘Neolithic revolution’ societies though: > > Physiologically speaking, Neolithic humans were basically the same hardware we have today, at least wrt our dietary needs. Depending on the society and the strata one occupied, they probably ate MORE meat than our hunter/gatherer ancestors did, since more was available. However, if you think you can somehow make your case using them as ‘natural humans’, as I said, go for it. > > -XT Sure may take a bit. My point is the foundation of post-Neolithic revolution civilizations(mouthful) is cereal grains. No cereal grains, no civilization. Does this first part seem right to you? So we can move on with common understanding on this point? ---
**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 24, 2010, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/153 "2010-11-24T13:39:59Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Muscles would be available, as would as I said marrow as well. Those would present good opportunities. And in the instance of costal people, muscles might even become a staple. Well until the muscles were depopulated so I’d guess short term, a more renewable food source might be requisite, to support large populations. > Great point. Foraged shellfish are no more or less likely to be overgathered than vegetable foods. In the specific case of mussels, it would be impossible for a pre-industrial society to drive them into extinction through over-harvesting, as the populations are constantly replenished with larval mussels arriving from places out of reach to the humans. Furthermore, they’re not nearly as seasonal as most plant-based foods. If you concede that scarcity of vegetable foods turns humans omnivorous, I need to point out that scarcity of vegetable foods happens on an annual basis in most parts of the world. The event in which this occurs is called winter. ---
**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 24, 2010, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/154 "2010-11-24T13:49:25Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > Let’s define “natural human” for the sake of this as Neolithic revolution. We’re seeing more complex division of labor, record keeping, lots of things that are defining to society today. A large enough turning point to place a marker there. Objections? Excellent! Neolithic record-keeping, in the form of cave painting, seems to favour what subject material? I don’t think anyone is disputing your minor point that humans in the past probably ate a higher ratio of vegetable to animal foods. The key sticking point here seems to be that you want to redefine the term ‘omnivore’, for some reason. You do realise that it’s an _inclusive_ term? That being an omnivore doesn’t _oblige_ the individual to eat exactly equal amounts of every different thing? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/155 "2010-11-24T15:00:35Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > I think where we have collectively arrived is man with out technology is not man, right. He can’t hunt, can’t farm, can’t eat cant survive. That is perhaps the truest thing you have said. Humans have been using technology since before we were humans. Humans wouldn’t exist without technology. > [@JZesbaugh](#): > > This is not obvious at all. In addition to humans having evolved with tools, humans have also evolved with cooking. The references to carrion are regarding very early humans, not the current “natural” state of the human. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are talking about modern man, in which case your cites to Lucy and the like are irrelevant, or else you are talking about the full historical chain of being for humans, in which case eating carrion is entirely relevant. > [@JZesbaugh](#): > > No, they would be accurate. I showed the iceman evidence, it’s fairly conclusive. It’s just adding a notch to the measuring stick. That evidence shows he had ibex and red deer meat in his stomach. Yep, that’s pretty conclusive - humans eat meat. **JZesbaugh** , you seem to have an agenda, for some reason you are unhappy with the idea that humans developed with a diet that includes meat. You will just have to be unhappy, because all the evidence concludes that humans developed with a diet that includes meat. If your point is that many people today eat far too much meat, then you should address that concern without fabricating and twisting the factual record. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/156 "2010-11-24T15:56:41Z")
[QUOTE=JZesbaugh] My point is the foundation of post-Neolithic revolution civilizations(mouthful) is cereal grains. No cereal grains, no civilization. Does this first part seem right to you? So we can move on with common understanding on this point? [/QUOTE] Ok, sure…I’ll bite. With the following caveat, since you left something important out. It was the cultivation of agriculture and the domestication of animals which lead to ‘civilization’, or at least to settle communities able to sustain themselves without a foraging nomadic existence. But with that proviso, sure…I don’t think anyone disputes that both were necessary (along with a few other things) to make early settlements possible. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/157 "2010-11-24T17:14:42Z")
> [@JZesbaugh](#): > > The Neolithic revolution was based on cereal crops, not animal husbandry, which was a by-product. Husbandry is not primary, it’s secondary. Which shows why we are built/selected for cereal/starch foods, not meat. I almost fell off my chair at this. Genus Homo, as I said earlier, has been around for over 2,000,000 years. If anything can be said about what we are “built/selected for” as a total system, it happened over those 2,000,000 years. The Neolithic revolution is less than rounding error in that number. (The “over” is at least 200,000 years.) Do we see any effect to the basic physiology in the past 10,000 years? Yes, a minor mutation to a single gene means that in a minority of humanity, the signal to stop making the lactase enzyme is never sent out. That’s pretty much it. The human digestive tract has not changed in gross anatomy for 500,000 generations. The human diet surely has. It must have changed over and over, both because of changes in local environment through time and because humans spread out to cover six continents and many isolated islands. Even on the isolated islands, given tens of thousands of years to evolve, humans like the Australian aborigines do not show any differences in gross anatomy. Full stop. Is it possible to have a diet that on balance is bad for you? Certainly. Here are the top three factors in such a diet. Excess total calories, excess sugars, excess fats. Note that meat doesn’t even make the list. Since you like things simple to the point of caricature, I’ll play along. No animal that can’t digest fiber is a herbivore. Humans can’t digest fiber. Therefore, humans are not herbivores. Mate. ---
**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 24, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/158 "2010-11-24T19:11:02Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > That evidence shows he had ibex and red deer meat in his stomach. …plus many of his tools and possessions were made from leather, sinew, bone, rawhide, etc. Pretty absurd to imagine that these materials were the only purpose his people had for animals. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/159 "2010-11-24T19:48:30Z")
Absurdity does not seem to be a filter criteria to **JZesbaugh**. ---
**Author:** ![JZesbaugh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c67d28/32.png) [@JZesbaugh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JZesbaugh)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531/160 "2010-11-25T00:39:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I almost fell off my chair at this. > > Genus Homo, as I said earlier, has been around for over 2,000,000 years. If anything can be said about what we are “built/selected for” as a total system, it happened over those 2,000,000 years. The Neolithic revolution is less than rounding error in that number. (The “over” is at least 200,000 years.) > > Do we see any effect to the basic physiology in the past 10,000 years? Yes, a minor mutation to a single gene means that in a minority of humanity, the signal to stop making the lactase enzyme is never sent out. > > That’s pretty much it. The human digestive tract has not changed in gross anatomy for 500,000 generations. The human diet surely has. It must have changed over and over, both because of changes in local environment through time and because humans spread out to cover six continents and many isolated islands. Even on the isolated islands, given tens of thousands of years to evolve, humans like the Australian aborigines do not show any differences in gross anatomy. Full stop. > > Is it possible to have a diet that on balance is bad for you? Certainly. Here are the top three factors in such a diet. Excess total calories, excess sugars, excess fats. Note that meat doesn’t even make the list. > > Since you like things simple to the point of caricature, I’ll play along. > > No animal that can’t digest fiber is a herbivore. Humans can’t digest fiber. Therefore, humans are not herbivores. Mate. Actually no amylase was highly selected for and is prevalent in the genes of peoples who adopted agriculture.’ You are missing the entire purpose of CHEWING! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature/561531.md?page=9)