Humans were naturally herbivores?

Factual Questions
21

Humans are not even remotely “largely carnivores”. The only hunter-gatherer culture that subsists exlusively on meat is the Eskimo (or Inuit, but aren’t we supposed to call them Eskimos again?) They live in an area that simply does not have vegetables growing, and they have specific adaptations to their environment. But even they don’t eat much red meat; fish has incontrovertible health benefits, but red meat is trickier.

Every other hunter-gatherer culture that I’ve heard of has a primarily (but then, not exclusively) plant-based diet. It can be surmised from the fact that humans require vitamin B-12 that we are not naturally exclusively vegetarian, since there are no vegetable sources of the nutrient. However, that’s the only nutrient that a vegan diet should lack - iron and calcium are present in decent quantities in leafy greens, which one could surmise would be a mainstay of diet based on eating what you find in the woods.

As for protein, it can be found in perfectly adequate quantities in a vegan diet - probably not comparable to the American diet, but there’s some evidence that Americans eat far, far too much protein naturally.

Processed grains are the mainstay of the agricultural human’s diet, and it’s become quite clear that they are not good in the quantities that we eat them. However, vegetables are the main source of nutrition for extant hunter-gatherer cultures, and that suggests that veggies are what we’re evolved to eat. Primarily, anyway.

You also have to remember that, despite our images of early humans taking down mammoths and other large mammals, that meat is hard to come by in a hunter-gatherer diet. It is available only in small quantities; the gatherers come up with most of the food the groups eat.

We should, if we were to eat a paleolithic diet, eat few starchy foods, lots of vegetables, and few meats, but we should eat some. (No dairy, either. Roving groups of early humans did not find and milk the wild cows on the savannah.) Nowadays, though, we have a lot of other sources for nutrition. So eat what you like, limit your intake of fatty foods, and eat more leafy greens because they’re good for you like mama always said.

22

It is absurd to claim that humans are “naturally” herbivores. Assuming that phrase has any meaning. Certainly, we don’t appear to have the digestive system of an herbivore, although that criterion is only suggestive. (The panda, although stricly herbivorous, has the digestive system of an omnivore and gets only 2-3% of the calories of the bamboo it eats, and has to eat amost all the time it is awake.) As pointed out, a stricly vegan diet, unsupplemented, cannot sustain life, which settles the issue for me.

The higher primates eat meat on occasion, although I don’t think they actively hunt it. They do search out insects, which are also sources of animal protein. But if a chimp happens on a monkey that has fallen out a tree it will eat it quite happily. So whatever ethical arguments there may be for veganism, there is no argument to nature.

In fact, there is considerable speculation that the transition to getting more colories from animal sources, which are much more concentrated (do you have any idea how much lettuce you would have to eat to get anough calories to survive?), was what allowed our brain size to triple or quadruple over our primate ancestors. The brain uses a lot of calories, about 25% of our resting metabolism, and in a calorie-limited situation, a big brain is not an advantage unless it is helping us get more calories. It doesn’t take much brain power to dig roots, but it certainly does improve hinting proficiency. So far, this is only a speculation, but it is a very attractive one.

23

The National Geographic Channel has a program called Be the Creature, where two guys follow groups of animals and play at living like them. In one episode, they followed a group of chimpanzees on a monkey hunt. The chimps used strategy and tactics to capture and kill monkeys in trees, which they ate. So (at least some) chimps to hunt.

24

What they really hate is when you make you new calfskin wallet cry “Mama, Mama!” to your hamburger.

Crayfish fingerpuppets on the other hand…

25

Two guys?!?! Two guys? I’ll have you know that those two guys are the Kratt Brothers. They are rock star famous among the 7 and under set for their longrunning PBS shows Zaboomafoo and Kratt’s Creatures. I saw 15,000 kids show up for one of their live appearances in Minneapolis.

Best nature educators for kids I have ever seen.

Yes, but roving groups of humans also died a lot from bad water and intestinal parasites. Milk provides a good safe source of water. Much as beer and wine do.

26

[quote=gregongieYikes. Don’t tell that to any Hindus or Buddhists (disclaimer: most, not all).[/quote]

Most, even? I haven’t seen any reliable numbers on what proportion of Hindus and Buddhists are vegetarian by choice. Vegetarianism dominates in southern India and Rajasthan in the northwest, but other than that, most Hindu ethnicities make extensive use of meat. Try to take away fish from Bengalis and you’re in big trouble. When we’re talking Buddhists, who are we talking about? The majority of East Asian Buddhist cultures are meat-eating. Buddha himself was not a vegetarian.

27

Cite? I’m finding it hard to believe that vegetables, which are only available seasonally unless artificial preservation measures are taken, constituted the majority of the paleolithic diet.

-lv

28

Humans (and apes) have forward eye placement / field of vision, which is better suited for predation.

29

Plus, according to Marvin Harris, it was the scarcity of leafy greens in Europe that led to the widespread adoption of the drinking of cow’s milk as a source of calcium. (Which resulted in white people!)

30

The usual definition of the paleolithic diet is the one that homo sapiens followed when they first evolved in Africa.

This places them in a year-round warm climate, and the proponents of the diet have identified over 200 species of plants that were available for consumption.

Later adaptations to cold climates are a different matter entirely.

The basic book on the subject is The Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet and Exercise and a Design for Living, by S. Boyd Eaton.

31

And grubs. Don’t forget the grubs.

32

Archeological excavation of ice-age hunting and gathering sites in Europe show, based on the remains found, that meat may have formed as much as 85% of the food consumed, while analysis of skeletal remains show that the people partaking of this diet were remarkably healthy.

Analysis of the percentage of meat consumed by current hunter-gatherer cultures can be misleading. The limiting factor on any component of the diet is not necessarily what is natural, desirable, or healthy, but often what is available. Most, if not all, modern hunter-gather societies (not to mention many agricultural societies) are found in marginalized areas which rarely provide much in the way of easy meat sources.

There may not actually be a lot of pure carnivores/herbivores. I recall reading a book (Mammals of Canada??) a number of years ago which described every species of mammal living in Canada. One of the more interesting things mentioned in the book was that field observations of the various species showed that there was only one totally herbivorous species, the groundhog, and one totally carnivorous, the polar bear. All others were observed to eat both plants and animals to a greater or lesser degree. The author’s theory was that all animals were opportunistically omnivorous, and would eat what was available, but that they were all pre-disposed towards certain foods by evolutionary specialization. For example, caribou are not adapted to catch and kill prey and are normally herbivorous, but are apparently quite willing to “graze” on large hordes of migrating lemmings.

33

If that paleolithic diet is so darn good, how come everybody who originally ate it is dead, anyway?

Likewise I like having access to more than what grows wild within a day’s walk of me.

34

True, but it likely arose because it’s necessary for swinging through trees by grabbing branches.

35

<Quote>cites from The Biology of an Omnivore
[ul][li]** While vegetarianism is a devout philosophical practice, it is not a natural diet for a human being.[/li][li] there are no purely vegitarian animals of notable size.[/li][li] Grazing animals regularly eat insects that infest the plants they are eating.[/li][li] Plants themselves cannot be called vegetarians, for they benefit greatly from animal by-products.[/li][li] what gardener doesn’t know the benefits of horse or cow manure?**</Quote>[/ul][/li]
Being omnivores also means eating insects. Since insects are plentiful, eating them became connected with being inferior (poor, uneducated, etc.) and therefore looked down upon. That is until someone thought about chocolate covered ants. :smiley:

36

I am reasonably certain that polar bears eat some amount of vegetation (seaweed/kelp?).

37

Ok, ok. You’re right.
Why is eating meat so much associaited with manliness? Especially now that my three year-old neice, and jjimm, can go out to Tesco’s and bag a sausage or pre-packaged steak? And why is it that said man is so ready to tell all who will listen that he wants his “BLOOD RARE”? :stuck_out_tongue:

38

Isn’t it obvious? Eating meat IS associated with manliness because it WAS associated with manliness and society has not shed that image yet. And eating blood rare meat is even manlier because so few people eat their meat that way. It is a mark of distinction that allows you to picture yourself as a caveman who doesn’t have time to thouroughly cook his food.

“Grog smash bunny! Fire? Grog no need fire. Grog hungry NOW. Eat bunny like this!”

(Some of us just like our meat better this way, but most of us don’t make a big deal out of it.)

And back to the OP, I finally checked the website listed. It struck me as very strange that a big deal was made out of the fact that herbivores teeth were more evolutionarily advanced than carnivores. What was he trying to imply? Surely he doesn’t think that carnivores evolved first and some time later came herbivores? Don’t there have to be herbivores before carnivores can evolve to eat the herbivores?

39

It is interesting to note quite a few posters assuming that hunting=meat while gathering = vegetable. That’s just not true. With the Eskimo as the obvious exception, most of the meat consumed by extant or recently extinct HGs comes from gathering and is usually collected by the women. That includes food like rats, lizards, insect larvae, eggs, fish and so forth. It makes up a significant proportion of traditional food but sure isn’t vegetarian fare. It also doesn’t leave much archaeological evidence in many cases.

Tubers, corms, bulbs etc. exist to provide an underground energy reserve to see the plant through lean times. They are well protected by a range of defences and quite capable of surviving in the soil for months or years. need no artificial storage. That’s the whole point of them. If they did require artificial preservation the plant species wouldn’t last long.

They also aren’t only seasonally available. Even in temperate regions tubers are available year round. Although the bulk of such food will be available in late autumn through winter they still exist in usable form all through spring and summer. And of course although there are fewer root vegetables in spring and summer that is the very time when there are more leafy vegetables and fruit. There is no significant seasonality of vegetable supply even in temperate regions

And as Exapno points out, the claim refers mostly to early African and Mediterranean diets. It is not just the more tropical environment that is important there. Humans are savanna animals. Savannas are seasonally dry environments with regular fires. Those conditions encourage the evolution of underground storage in plants. There is a higher proportion of root storage in savannas than any other ecosystem

We are really only talking about mammals here. With the exception of a few dinos most reptiles have fairly non-specific peg-like teeth that aren’t well differentiated between the few herbivores and the majority herbvores. It’s only amongst mammals that you see real adpation of tooth form. And amongst the mammals carnivores sure did evolve first. Well, insectivores really. They probably ate whatever they could get their teeth on, but insects made up the majority of the diet. And the teeth of these early insectivores were more similar to many modern carnivores than to many herbivores. Not surprising since they serve the same basic prupose of grabbing prey and slicing flesh.

It’s highly misleading to say that herbivore teeth are more evolutionarily advanced. Both have been evolving for exactly the same amount of and both are just as advanced. Perhaps you could say that carnivore teeth exhibit more primitive traits, but even that is a gross generaliation. Pandas are herbivores and show fairly primitive tooth patterns. A blue whale is a carnivore and has the most extreme derivation of teeth seen in any mammal. Echidnas are carnivores and lack teeth and a functional lower jaw altogether.

40

Where do you get the idea that anybody in the livestock industry has a “revolting disregard for life”. Last I checked dead animals are worthless :smiley:

Its very simple, feedlots exist to make money and you make the most money on healthy stress free animals. All your typical feedlot steer has to do is eat and sleep, that is hardly a bad life. Sure the end result is death but if it wasnt for the meat industry the animal would never have been alive anyway.