Animals can be vegetarian, since the microbiome will adjust, and be handed down.
Many animals also like to play. During play they learn about pain, that it hurts and is to be avoided.
This begs the question: given that they understand the nature of pain, why do animals subject themselves to the risk of being eaten alive, versus avoiding confrontation by being vegetarians?
There don’t appear to be solid arguments for carnivorism: massive dinosaurs that could fend off meat eaters were often herbivores.
It’s hard to say what would have become of the dinosaurs. Perhaps in time they become vegetarian humanoids.
This suggests that carnivorism is nothing more than a cultural phenomenon, a habit passed down the generations, sculpting the phenotype towards claws, fangs, speed, agility, bite strength, etc.
As the habit sculpted the phenotype, you could argue that carnivorism became more of an imperative, and that the habit became encoded in the genotype, and expressed as an animal psychology.
This is quite strange because, as mentioned, we can observe that animals understand that pain is to be avoided. Thus, this psychological drive is over-riding the common sense that they display as juveniles.
“OK, looks like I’m hungry and territorial. Let me just go ahead and turn off the thinking module and risk getting eaten alive. Now let’s do it as a pack. We are all very much intelligent when lounging about, licking and playing at home, and now, let’s all team up and risk getting eaten alive. Oh, darn, looks like one of our pack is getting eaten alive. Let’s all save our own skin and get out of here. Jeez. We’re really dumb aren’t we?”
What psychological and evolutionary theories address this bifurcation from “common sense in the den” to “blatant disregard for my personal safety” when seeking out meals?
.