Except that it doesn’t - dairy from other animals, as part of the adult diet, is VERY new in human history and even today the majority of adult humans can not digest milk. Arguably, outside of a few people, mostly in Europe, dairy past the age of weaning is FAR more unnatural than eating animal flesh.
How are eggs NOT animal-derived food?
Proving he was an omnivore.
That’s obvious.
Bears will happily subsist on a diet far more than a mere 50% plants. In fact, throughout history, bears that subsisted on a largely vegetarian diet were preferred for eating. The only bear that is an obligate carnivore is the polar bear. The giant panda, another bear species, eats almost exclusively bamboo despite retaining highly developed canines and a short length digestive tract like a carnivore.
I get the impression that you came here with a conclusion and are thrashing around in vain to avoid evidence that your conclusion is wrong.
It’s lotsa fun for us. To be honest, I don’t understand how having one’s ignorance flayed open in public is fun for you. I guess it proves that there’s a fetish for everything.
Your point about bears brings me back to my very first post.
“Bottom line every human or sub culture is different, some areas people eat all veggies, some areas people eat all meat.”
Diet defined by tradition rather the biology.
I have gone over and over the issue of cows “herbivores” eating, A) other cows, B) insects(naturally).
So, We have a classification problem. ( I even carefully mentioned bugs in OP)
OP Quote “Human beings are vegetarian by nature, scarcity makes us omnivores”
The iceman evidence seems to confirm this.
Then OP, said the like of “I think, it is my opinion that in a situation of abundance mankind would always choose vegetation as food.”
I then at one point posed the question “in a starvation situation do you take the raw meat or the bananas” as an exploration of what our nature compels.
Someone then errantly replied, the non technological banana is not good food, but the meat would ALSO be a product of hunting technology. In the “hypothetical” scenario you are starving and may only take one. You are starving and need food now, this is not a choice of luxury.
But you didn’t say. You said, and continued to insist throughout the thread, something very different: “Human beings are vegetarian by nature, scarcity makes us omnivores.” That’s incorrect. *Primarily *an herbivore diet? Ok, sure, I’ll accept that. Most of us, in modern life, would probably be healthier on a primarily herbivore diet with a much smaller amount of meat than we do now, I agree.
What you do define as “primarily”, out of interest? More meat than a cow, less than a wolf? Sure. Absolutely. You’re right.
There are a LOT of people who would seem to contradict that statement by virtue of continuing to eat animal flesh while surrounded by an abundance of easily obtainable plant foods.
Raw meat. At least for me. Are you saying I’m not human?
Thats a good point, I’ve been using it a lot with out defining it. “Main component, basis.” I’ve tried referencing some evidence that shows that, and even uses the term.
I find the assumptions and inferences one can make from the term “omnivore” misleading, and incomplete. It promotes an ignorance. Rather then try to make nature fit our three prong model, use a better model that accounts for exceptions, and provides a clearer understanding. Better fitting nature, rather then trying to cram things into a limited set of definitions.
What statement gives more concise information. Bear* in mind this is an example.
A chimpanzee is an omnivore.
A chimpanzee is primarily a herbivore.
What assumptions does each statement lead to.
One issue is this meanders into an almost political argument, and one of personal dietary choice. It’s tough to separate that bias.
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.
No I’m not inferring anything personal from the choice, I posed the question there is no “right” answer.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about that. But you didn’t try to do that. You took humans from one existing category which doesn’t describe them as specifically as you’d like (“omnivore”), and you stuck it into another existing category which doesn’t describe them as specifically as you’d like (“herbivore”). You need a modifier for herbivore, so obviously herbivore doesn’t cut it any better than omnivore, and it’s quite arguably worse, as omnivore doesn’t require a modifier at all to be technically correct.
So, yeah, I’d say there must be a political or personal motivation behind that, because I can’t fathom a scientific one.
I also am not sure what purpose a five or seven level system would really serve that the current three level system doesn’t. What would you use it for?
Only there’s no evidence that this was ever the case. Small, nomadic bands placed a premium on hunting meat, so much so that male-dominance evolved. The few vegetarian societies that exist today evolved from omnivorous societies that found themselves in an ecosystem where it was disadvantageous to raise livestock for meat. Even those societies make significant use of animal milk, yogurt, and butter, and have evolved lactose tolerance to allow them to do so.
There are societies in South America that have different words for “hungry” and “hungry for meat.” Vegetables do not satisfy the latter, but meat does satisfy the former. These are societies that find it very difficult to obtain large quantities of meat, but they spend a significant amount of their time and energy getting what little they can find.
Eating meat is simply rewarding in a caloric sense, so much so that societies with meagre resources find it advantageous to dedicate significant portions of those resources to obtaining meat.
Haha, a political purpose actually. Now that I really think about it. Calling people “omnivores” can lead to the ignorant conclusion that people can eat as much meat as they like with out negative effect. The argument that excessive meat is bad. Can be countered using the scientific terminology “but were omnivores”. Which is arguably becoming a huge social problem. To somehow infer that the natural diet has more of a lean towards herbivore, alleviates that issue.
I think due to this condition a better measuring stick provided by scientific scrutiny is warranted.
So you think you can use false terminology, false science, false logic, and deceptive conclusions to trick people into adopting better dietary practices.
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?