Are we "meant" to be herbivores

In My Humble Opinion
1

I like eating meat but read that we don’t have the enzymes to digest cellulose. I thought that was a good argument against being a vegan then I did some more research…

Then it quotes this:

Then it goes on to say:

and

Though I don’t believe in God I found it interesting that in Genesis God originally only let people eat plants. Then after the Flood He said that people can eat ALL animals. (even though He had them bring 7 pairs of “clean” animals [that were allowed to be sacrificed]) Then in Leviticus, etc, it says which animals people can and can’t eat:

Then in the NT it says that people can eat any kind of meat - even that which was sacrificed to other gods. (similar to how circumcision is no longer necessary) Finally in Revelation there would no longer be death so there would be no meat-eating.

2

BTW in the Brick Testament I thought it was inaccurate when it shows a giraffe being sacrificed because I didn’t think it was a “clean” animal:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/god_drowns_everyone/25_gn08_20.html

But it seems that giraffes are in fact “clean”

3

Humans aren’t meant to be anything, were we meant to create economies? Were we meant to transplant organs from one to another?

Humans have a sort of halfway digestive system according to what I have read, meaning omnivore. Strict carnivores have a shorter simpler digestive tract, and strict herbivores have more complicated digestive systems designed for breaking down cellulose etc.

4

Hard to say which argument is more ridiculous, the one invoking an invisible sky pixie, or the one that says that we aren’t meant to eat meat because we can eat plants.

Both arguments so stupid they hardly need commentary, but I will do so briefly:

  1. Humans can’t digest cellulose, but neither can any other animal on the planet. How this provides evidence of what any species is meant to eat eludes me.

  2. Humans do not need cellulose. In fact humans do not need vegetable matter at all. Humans can and have lived perfectly healthy lives by eating nothing but raw animals. We can obtain all the nutrients we need in this manner. Conversely, humans do need meat. While humans can obtain all the vitamins they need from eating animals, they can not obtain all the B vitamins they need from eating plants. So to the extent that what we *need *to eat tells us anything about what we are *meant *to eat, we are meant to eat animals, not plants. Of course this is still a stupid argument, but the conclusion of the argument is inescapable.

  3. The orientation of the eyes, dentition and so forth are not accurate ways of predicting what an animal’s “natural” diet is. Ask a panda or a maned wolf.

  4. Humans do not need to cook meat to make it safe or digestible. Humans can, do, have lived long healthy lives eating raw meat. Any argument that proceeds from an argument that this is impossible is so stupid and ignorant that it really deserves no further time. In contrast, many plant foods are indigestible if they are unprepared. Everything from acorns and barley to potatoes and plantains are indigestible or actually poisonous if uncooked. So to the extent that a requirement for cooking tells us what we are meant to eat, we are meant to eat meat. Still a stupid argument.

  5. Humans do not need to tools to process meat. Humans can, do and always have caught an eaten fish, rats, insects, shellfish and whole slew of other prey bare handed. In contrast, humans do need tools for processing plant foods ranging from grains and nuts to tubers and bulbs. So once again, to the extent that a requirement for tools tells us what we are meant to eat, we are meant to eat meat. And it’s still a stupid argument. in fact in this case it’s a really stupid argument because humans are meant use tools. It’s a defining feature of our species.

  6. Any argument about the real world that invokes a particular magical sky pixie is really to dumb for words.
    Humans are omnivores. We have always been omnivores. We do much better on a pure meat diet than on a pure vegetable diet, but nether diet is optimal. The hunter gatherer diet consists of between 30% and 90% meat by weight and 60% and 100% meat by calorie. Even at the low end, this is much higher than the meat consumed in the typical western diet. To the extent that we are "meant: to eat anything, then we are “meant” to eat a shitload of meat. Of course we are also meant to get off our lazy fat arses and burn off all the calories so consumed.

What we are meant to do and what is optimal in the modern world are not necessarily the same thing. There are great arguments that vegetarian diet has health benefits for most westerners in 2015.

The argument that it is what wear meant to eat is just plain dumb.

5

Except, of course, for that nasty little requirement for vitamin B12, the only NATURAL source of which is other animals… which implies at least occasional eating of one’s fellow creatures.

I would think the popularity of things like sushi and steak tartar would put a lie to that - we don’t have to cook our meat.

If you don’t believe in God why are you quoting Genesis?

Despite the special pleading by various vegans, humans really are omnivores.

6

Notice that I put “meant” in quotes in the subject line! Also if God created people then they would be meant to do certain things.

So your entire argument involves what you’ve read about how complex and long our digestive system.

It seems you didn’t read the link in my OP:

It says:

Like I said there are different types of herbivores… some are grazers and leaf eaters, others eat fruit. Because our digestive system (number of stomachs) is different to a grazer like a cow doesn’t mean that we aren’t herbivores.

7

Apparently it is in milk… though it comes from an animal. The B12 issue is interesting.

But what about its point that we usually need knives - the fish in sushi is sliced very thin.

Almost everyone I know does though and many want me to become a Christian. Also I find it interesting and I want to see how much it makes sense. (usually it doesn’t make much sense) BTW some fans of sci-fi/fantasy quote it without believing it is literally true.

It seems you didn’t read the link that compares carnivores, herbivores and omnivores. You probably assumed that it was quickly written like what I quoted about having to cook food.

So you brought up B12 and said we don’t “have” to cook our meat. There are still a lot of other arguments to dismiss.

8

Cooking does not make meat *edible *- it just makes it tastier and easier to digest. Empirical tests over a period of 15 years allow me to vouch that dogs are not exactly repulsed by cooked meat, either ;). As for safe, it’s true that cooking meat allows us to eliminate dangerous parasites and bacteria… but those selfsame parasites affect animals just the same. A tapeworm is a tapeworm is a tapeworm. Which, incidentally, is why we typically don’t eat wild carnivores - they’re riddled with parasites.

But man can absolutely survive on raw meat. What else is a rare steak ?
Anyway, more detailed article on the notion.

We’re also hardly the only animal to kill others using tools - eagles and other birds of prey notoriously smash tortoises on rocks from high altitudes for example. Monkeys use sticks to fish for ants in their mounds, etc… Also, dairying ants breed and manipulate the life-cycle of other insects (aphids) for consumption - well, they milk the aphids mostly, but one expects when an aphid dies they don’t let its corpse go to waste.
Besides, I mean, we’re the only animal that wears shoes, too. Does that mean we were never “meant” to walk ?

9

That’s been around for some time. It’s basically begging the question–the authors make up their own definition of an “omnivore” by picking only those animals which are anatomically most different from humans, and then assert that humans don’t fit in.

10

I found what is in the Bible to be interesting without having to believe it is the Truth.

So your summary of

is “we aren’t meant to eat meat because we can eat plants”?

The second argument is a straw man which is a logical fallacy.

Well that argument was against vegans which means there are now less arguments against begin a vegan.

Interesting claim… then why does basically every culture I know of use fire to cook meat? Fires are pretty difficult to light. And why have I been told that meat needs to be cooked “properly”?

I thought there are people who have never eaten meat in their life… is that a wrong belief?

Well that agrees with the pro-herbivore argument because some pro-carnivore people used it to say that only carnivores have forward facing eyes.

Then why do people bother cooking meat? Why!?

I found it interesting as a side argument though most of the strongest arguments on this subject are here:

In my OP I said that someone believed we were “meant” to eat fruits, etc, not necessarily all plants such as grass and leaves.

You should have said “sometimes Humans do not need to tools to process meat” - I mean do you honestly think that we don’t need ANY tools to process meats such as beef?

In the OP the guy said we should eat fruits. Those plants aren’t fruits.

In the Bible people originally didn’t have tools.

This link didn’t use that:

My talk about the Bible isn’t meant to prove anything just that the Bible has some things to say on the matter. And I’m not saying I’m a vegan - it’s just that the evidence is interesting. I don’t want to be a vegan. I prefer the convenience of fast food, etc.

The topic is about based on comparisons to other animals, what would we expect to be the case.

11

Thanks that is a good counter-argument.

12

BTW a guy I knew from school wrote this blog:
http://119hours.blogspot.com.au/
“Thoughts from a married, 30 something, Vegan, father of four, airline pilot and full time fitness fanatic.”
He competes in Ironman contests and the blog talks about his blood tests.

13

Can’t you technically get it from mushrooms?

14

Actually the article you quoted
http://www.geek.com/news/geek-answers-why-can-animals-eat-raw-meat-but-we-cant-1593883/
said: “A vulture, for instance, eats almost exclusively rotting or semi-rotting food, and as a result has a stomach tuned to sterilizing such hazardous materials. Few parasites can survive the acid bath of a scavenger’s stomach, and the same is true to a lesser extent about most carnivores”

And incidentally the Bible says not to eat carnivores.

“Today, eating some steak tartare is almost entirely safe” - one exception doesn’t disprove it.

I think the point is that we tend to rely on tools to eat meats. I mean it would be hard to kill and eat a cow without tools.

I’m not sure - I’m confused.

15

No.
My summary of your post is that the argument *you *present, “we aren’t meant to eat meat because we can eat plants”, is stupid. Neither more nor less

Of course I never attempted to address arguments purportedly on some webpage that I have never heard of, much less read.

This is great debates. We are here to address *your *arguments,

No, it isn’t.

A stupid argument is a stupid argument regardless of the intended conclusion. If this argument was ever used against vegans, it was stupid argument used gainst vegans.

Now you are using it in support of veganism, and it is a stupid argument in support of veganism. It’s not getting any less stupid.

A turd is still a turd even if it’s being used to fertilise the roses!

Basically? So not all then? That demolishes your argument right there.

The same reason that you were told that Christopher Columbus’ crew thought they would sail off the earth. You were either lied to or misled by someone incredibly ignorant.

Traditionally vegetarians survived by eating large amounts of milk. Today they can make do with medical supplements on capsule form.

But if your argument is that we are meant to domesticate animals or produce capsules in labs, then your stated argument that were clearly are not meant to eat meat because we have to domesticate animals to do so becomes even more stupid.

Once again, a turd is a turd. your argument presented in this thread is a turd. The fact that someone else also has turd doesn’t make change that fact.

You have repeatedly argued that features such as eye position, gut length and so forth are somehow indicative of what an animal is "meant to eat. That argument is easily proved to be a load of horseshit.

Someone else using the same horseshit arguments for the counter position doesn’t change the fact that your argument is horseshit.

Because it tastes good.

No, they aren’t.

Coconut, plantains and grains are fruit, They are also impossible to prepare without tools and/or require cooking to be digestible. And you argued that if a food required tools or cooking to be eaten, then we are not meant to eat it.

And who is this someone who makes a claim that humans should only eat ripe fruit? That argument is even dumber than an argument that humans meant to only eat vegetable matter. There is nowhere on the planet that a human could find enough ripe fruit to live on. Such a diet would result in death from starvation within a year anywhere on Earth.

Ahhh, this old weasel tactic. You say that dogs have three legs. I point out a dozen dogs that have four legs, and you claim that you only meant that some dogs have three legs.

Look, anybody who wants to read the thread can see that you made the absolutist argument that humans “[[have] to… cut meat with knives because we can’t chew it.” That was a quote form you. You made the absolutist statement. I was addressing that absolutist statement.

So stop with the weaseling, please.

Really? Nuts aren’t fruit? Do tell. :dubious:

Bible says that whales existed before there were any plants and that black cows that are shown poles with white spots will give birth to calves with white spots. So what? The Bible is full of ridiculous claims that we can easily disprove. It’s bronze age nonsense.

I already addressed this. We wouldn’t “expect” anything. Pandas are obligate herbivores. maned wolves are omnivores, both are recently evolved form carnivore stock and retain carnivore features. Humans are highly atypical members of our class. We can’t expect anything.

16

Actually, it’s vital - lack of B12 is eventually fatal. Of course it’s in milk, the purpose of milk is to provide a complete food for infants, but the B12 in milk comes from the B12 the mother consumes, which has to provide for both her and her children. While the body can store B12 for years it can’t store it indefinitely thus adults need to periodically consume foods that contain B12.

You don’t need knives for things like oysters (although a rock might be helpful), small fish, arthropods, and the like which are indisputably animal flesh.

The arguments involving necessity of tools is pointless, though - tool use is a defining human trait. There are NO humans without tool use. In fact, even some other hominid species, like the Neanderthal, also have universal tool use. Tool use is found in chimpanzees and crows as well. Oddly enough, both of those are omnivores as well, even if chimps are mainly vegetarian they aren’t exclusively so.

OK, but it’s still bizarre to use myths you don’t believe in to argue for or against humans being omnivores vs. vegetarians.

I did. It is factually wrong. The average human small intestine is only about 4 times the average human body length, not 10-11 times. Factual error invalidates that cite.

Well, OK, we eliminated the one about intestinal length…

It’s also wrong - the average human small intestine is around 20-24 feet long. In other words, about four times the length of a human body (5-6 feet). In other words, their designated omnivore length.

I find the Norse sagas to be interesting but I don’t use them to argue facts.

Because cooked meat is tasty? Because cooked meat has less bacteria and parasites so those cultures that commonly cook meat tend to have healthier individuals, thereby displacing those that are full of parasites from eating mostly raw meat? Because cooked meat is easier for young children and old people to chew? (Some cultures have healthy adults pre-chew food for infants/toddlers/old folks, too)

That’s why a lot of cultures have a tradition of not letting the fire die out. Heck, even in this day and age of matches and other easy firelighters when I was a kid out camping we used to “bank” the fire and re-light it as needed from the coals.

Thinking that a fire has to be laboriously re-ignited for every meal and night-time warming shows an ignorance of actual fire use and conservation in history.

Because the people making those rules are interested in maximizing human health and fire is a good way to kill off parasites and some other pathogens. Cooked meat is usually safer in that regard.

No. We don’t have to eat meat, that is, animal flesh. Being an omnivore means having choices. We DO need a small amount of food of animal origin - but that can be milk or eggs.

There are people who have never eaten citrus fruit, or beans, or chocolate, any other food category you care to name, too. Humans are enormously flexible in their diet, that’s an advantage we have over some other species, and it’s one reason we have so successfully spread over most of the land area of the planet.

Why not?

Why do we bother making pickles? Why do we bother brewing beer or distilling whiskey? None of those are required.

Based on what? Some other species of primate that is primarily a fruit-eater? We’re not that species. ALL of our closest relatives where we have information on diet have eaten meat at least occasionally: Neanderthal, chimpanzee, and bonobo. Why would we be the odd one out?

Do you think chimpanzees can get into nuts without a couple of rocks to bash them open?

In any case - “eats meat” does not mean the critter has to eat beef - there are plenty of smaller scale animals that can be “processed” with nothing more than human teeth. Nevermind that there has never been a human culture without cutting tools.

There are NO great apes that are exclusively fruit eaters. Gorillas are actual vegetarians, but they eat green leafy stuff as well as fruit. Chimps, as noted, eat nuts, termites, various leaves, and the occasional bit of meat. In fact, chimps have been known to hunt animals to eat them. Why would we be the only fruit-eating ape?

The Bible is a collection of myths of bronze-age shepherds. They are not a valid cite for an evidence-based argument of whether or not humans are omnivores.

17

No, it does not. It says to eat no animals except a handful. Carnivores such as piranhas or crows are perfectly kosher. Herbivores such as horses or termites are not. There is no prohibition in the Bible against eating carnivores.

Most cases of food poisoning come from vegetable food. If you want to pursue this argument we once again end up with the opposite conclusion to the one you intend

Blatant special pleading.

Take some barley, coconuts, taro or sago. Try eating them without tools. Let us know how you went.

Take a rat, termite mound, oyster bed or bird’s nest. Try eating them without tool. Actually don’t bother. We know the answer.

Special pleading, clear and simple. It is hard to eat some animals without tools and hard to eat some plants without tools. But you just want to list the hard animals and the easy plants.

And once I again i have to point out that the entire premise is stupid. Using tools to obtain food is a defining feature of our species. It is what we are meant to do. If we didn’t use tools to obtain food we wouldn’t *be *humans.

Arguing that we aren’t meant to eat something because we need tools to do so is just arguing that humans aren’t meant to be human.

18

Short answer: no

Slightly longer answer: IF the mushroom is grown on a substrate rich in B12 it might pick up a nutritionally useful amount of it… but that requires human intervention and an artificial growing environment. There is no mushroom that naturally contains B12.

19

So… what is your point? No one is arguing humans are “meant” to eat rotting meat or that humans are carnivores. We’re omnivores.

Again, you can not expect rational people to accept the myths of bronze-age shepherds as “fact” or “evidence” in an argument such as this one.

People can and have lived long lives while full of various parasites. The fact that one can pick up parasites in food is irrelevant to whether or not one is “meant” to eat that food. MOST wild animals live their lives riddled with parasites. The fact modern humans, at least in the first and second world, don’t is both a natural and historical outlier.

“Eats meat” does not mean “eats cows”. In fact, most people in the history of our species never ate cow. There are plenty of meats like oysters, fish, etc. that can be managed without tools. Probably small rodents like mice and rats, too, and small birds.

20

No I quoted and linked to other people who think we’re “meant” to be herbivores. Your version of my argument is a strawman. Your strawman can easily be disproven… e.g. a dog can eat plants but that doesn’t mean it isn’t meant to eat meat.

Well that was the purpose of this thread - for people to look at the in depth arguments not just what I explicitly mentioned.

I’m not really convinced either way at the moment. I wanted this thread to explore the pro-herbivore arguments. The link would argue the case better than I can. Also I haven’t fully read that link so I’m not in a good position to defend it.

So do you think a complete and accurate summary of that big link is “we aren’t meant to eat meat because we can eat plants.”? Like I said the example of dogs destroys that argument.

That was a question not really an argument.

So it’s completely fine to eat raw chicken, pork, etc?

I was asking you about meat not milk in that instance.

I don’t want to argue about what I’ve posted since I know virtually nothing on this topic. I haven’t even fully read that main link. I’d like you to address that link.

The purpose was this thread was for me to see how good those linked arguments are not to try and defend my limited knowledge on it.