Eating Meat is Biologically Meant to Be
Humans have been eating meat for as long as our history can be traced back. In fact, one of the most vocal proponents of the argument that humans are natural omnivores is himself a vegetarian, the anatomist and a primatologist Dr. John McArdle. As McArdle has argued, “Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.”
Several studies have also argued that it was our ancestors’ search for animal foods that triggered the expansion of our population across the world.
Other research has shown that it's impossible for prehistoric humans to have been vegetarians, because the plant foods available at the time could not have provided them with enough calories and nutrients to survive. In which case, to some extent, we can thank our meat-eating ancestors for our existence today.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Humans have an outstandingly bad sense of smell, hardly something that would serve a carnivore well. For those who think they are carnivores, please go out with your dog sometime and see who will sniff out a prey animal first- you or the dog? Then apologise to your dog, you have underestimated him. You two are just not on the same level.
Compared to most herbivores we have a terrible sense of smell as well.
Human beings are omnivores, pure and simple. By virtue of our intelligence we are also the apex predator in any environment that we chose to enter.
Eating meat was an important part of how our H.Heidelbergensis ancestors evolved into human beings... and though humans can survive on a vegetarian diet much more care has to be taken to ensure the proper nutrition then a diet that includes the responsible use of meat.
List of carnivores from the New world encyclopedia- http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Carnivore
Humans are not on the list.
and here is the defintion:Characteristics of carnivores
This tiger's sharp teeth and strong jaws are the classical physical traits expected from carnivorous mammalian predatorsCharacteristics commonly associated with carnivores include organs for capturing and disarticulating prey (teeth and claws serve these functions in many vertebrates) and status as a predator. In truth, these assumptions may be misleading, as some carnivores do not hunt and are scavengers (though most hunting carnivores will scavenge when the opportunity exists). Thus, they do not have the characteristics associated with hunting carnivores.
Carnivores typically have comparatively short digestive systems relative to those of herbivores as they are not required to break down tough cellulose found in plants. Herbivores like horses and rabbits, which depend on microbial fermentation, tend to have a very large and complex large intestine, while carnivores like cats and dogs tend to have a simple and small large intestine (Bowen 2000). Omnivores like pigs and humans tend to have a substantial large intestine, but smaller and less complex than that of herbivores (Bowen 2000). Insectivores lack a large intestine (Palaeos 2003).
In most cases, some plant material is essential for adequate nutrition, particularly with regard to minerals, vitamins, and fiber. Most wild carnivores consume this in the digestive system of their prey. Many carnivores also eat herbivore dung, presumably to obtain essential nutrients that they could not otherwise obtain, since their dentition and digestive system do not permit efficient processing of vegetable matter.
Great Blue Heron with a snakeFelines, ranging from domestic cats to lions, tigers, cheetahs, and leopards.
Some Canines, such the gray wolf and coyote. Domestic dogs and red foxes are broadly considered carnivorous but are able to digest some vegetable matter making them somewhat omnivorous. The Smithsonian Institution has listed them as carnivores, because of their dental makeup and digestive tract.
Hyenas
Some mustelids, including ferrets
Polar Bears
Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, walruses, etc.)
Dolphins
Whales
Microbats
Carnivorous Marsupials, such as the Tasmanian devil
Birds of prey, including hawks, eagles, falcons, and owls
Scavenger birds , for example vultures
Several species of waterfowl including gulls, penguins, pelicans, storks, and herons
Anurans (frogs and toads)
Snakes
Some lizards, such as the gila monster and all monitor lizards.
Crocodilians
the Komodo dragon also known as the Komodo monitor, Komodo Island monitor
Some turtles, including the snapping turtle and most sea turtles
Sharks
Many bony fish, including tuna, marlin, salmon, and bass
Octopuses and squid
Cone shells
Spiders, scorpions, and many other arachnids
Mantises, Giant water bugs, and many other insects
Cnidarians
Sea stars
Any human who thinks they are a carnivore needs to open their cat's mouth. Have a good look inside. Now have a look at your teeth. If you honestly feel there is no difference, you need to schedule a visit to your vet.
The human jaw has evolved to it's present form because our ancestors cooked their food ... a process that makes meat , and vegetables, easier to chew / digest.
soo im not a huge follower of the bible but from what i remember adam and eve were placed in what? a garden? and people still say that man has been eating meat since the beginning of time?
well if i had no weapon, but fruit and veggies all around me, i'd be like screw trying to go catch an animal that's ten times faster than me, ill just pluck an apple off the tree and were all set... i mean really, some animal probaly just got killed one day and left behind, and a guy was lucky enough to find it and got a crazy idea; lets cook it. so meat isn't so natural after all?
True, humans without tools are not efficient hunters... but you seem to see it as though H.Sapiens just 'popped' into being. We evolved from earlier species that were better adapted to hunting without tools (tool use has been seen amongst H.Heidelbergensis, over 400000 years ago). Also remember that the use of fire as a tool precedes modern humans by a very long time... perhaps started by H.Erectus ~1.5 mya.
To compare modern humans to animals without taking tool use into account would be like comparing wolves to blind pumas and asking which is the better hunter.
In Genesis
25 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals , each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food . 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.
Genesis 4
1 Adam [r] lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. [s] She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth [t] a man." 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."
God gave man dominion over all creatures. He told us they were ours to eat. He gave Adam and Eve animal skin clothes. He demanded that animals be killed and sacrificed to him. GOD LIKES MEAT NOT VEGETABLES.
GOD IS A CARNIVORE.
Every culture and civilization that has ever existed, whether it is an empire or a remote rainforest tribe has an omnivorous diet . In the entire history of mankind, not one vegetarian society has ever been found. THIS MEANS THAT EVERY CULTURE, CIVILIZATION, AND SOCIETY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED, DISCOVERED MEAT-EATING ON THEIR OWN AND INCORPORATED THE PRACTICE INTO THEIR WAY OF LIFE. What more evidence do you need that eating meat is natural?
History has proved the "eating meat is unnatural" theory wrong a THOUSAND TIMES.
I read in a quote book that "vegetarian is just a clever word for lousy hunter". It still makes me laugh today.
Have you ever heard of Hindus?
These are RELIGIONS that developed after the society /civilization was already established.
From Wikipedia:
"Jain vegetarianism is the diet of the Jains, the followers of Jainism. It is the most radical form of religiously-motivated diet regulation in the Indian subcontinent.
Like in Hinduism and Buddhism, Jain objections to the eating of meat and fish are based on the principle of nonviolence (ahimsa, literally "non-injuring"). Every act by which a person directly or indirectly supports killing or injury is seen as violence (himsa), which creates harmful karma. The aim of ahimsa is to prevent the accumulation of such karma. The extent to which this intention is put into effect varies greatly among Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. ...
It is an indispensable condition for liberation from the cycle of reincarnation, which is the ultimate goal of all Jain activities. Jains share this goal with Hindus and Buddhists, but their approach is particularly rigorous and comprehensive. Their scrupulous and thorough way of applying nonviolence to everyday activities, and especially to food , shapes their entire lives and is the most significant hallmark of Jain identity. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism
"In Buddhism, the views on vegetarianism vary from school to school. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and beef if the animal was not killed for the purpose of providing food for monks. Theravada also believes that the Buddha allowed the monks to choose a vegetarian diet, but only prohibited against eating human, elephant, horse, dog, snake, lion, tiger, leopard, bear, and hyena flesh. Buddha did not prohibit any kind of meat-eating for his lay followers. In Vajrayana, the act of eating meat is not always prohibited. The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, for they believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat meat or fish."
"In the Pali Canon, the Buddha refused suggestion by Devadatta to institute vegetarianism in the monastic code.
Mahayana Buddhism argues that if one pursues the path of the Bodhisattva for enlightenment, one should avoid meat eating to cultivate compassion for all living beings. Similarly, in Theravada Buddhism, avoiding meat eating for the purpose of cultivation of metta (loving kindness) is also seen to be in accord with Buddhist Dharma. In most Buddhist branches, one may adopt vegetarianism if one so wishes but it is not considered skillful practice to verbally attack another person for eating meat.
In Chinese Mahayana, vegetarianism is seen as a prerequisite for pursuing the path of the Bodhisattva. The argument for vegetarianism is made more forcefully, often to the extent of accusing those who eat meat of lacking compassion. Chinese Mahayanists do not accept the Pali suttas as definitive when they conflict with the Mahayana sutras, and consequently some do not accept that Gautama Buddha ever ate meat or permitted eating it, in accordance with the Lankavatara Sutra."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_in_Buddhism
So, what is your point?
A religion is not a society .
"A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
What I'm saying is that no veg society, has ever developed, anywhere in the history of the world, ever.
And Hindus religions don't even agree on what an acceptable diet is.
In Mahayana Buddhism, one should avoid meat eating to cultivate compassion, but it's optional and frowned upon to harass meat-eating practioners.
In Chinese Mahayana, veg is required and practioners are pressured.
Historically speaking, when people were looking for convenient ways to get their calories, they'd go towards meat since it is rich in calories and fats. People are drawn to fat because of our drive to keep warm and have energy that has passed down from our ancestors. Also, eating veg foods requires a lot of eating to get enough calories and fat and nutrients, and people couldn't afford the extra time and energy required for that kind of diet (growing, preparing, consuming, preserving and storing for winter).
Our ancestors spent all of their time and energy just trying to survive. In today's technologically advanced society , everything is all about ease and comfort, which makes a veg diet both practical and possible.
I have no problem admitting that our earliest ancestors were mostly veg foragers and the meat they did eat was raided eggs or carrion killed by accidents or other predators. But when they mastered the art of hunting, their lives became much easier and more of their offspring survived. I can say with confidence that not one of those ancestors in his/her right mind said, "Let's go back to scrounging for roots and berries."
Veg diets are only possible in today's world of "special" ingredients and things made with all sorts of unusual substitutions, usually discovered in labs after years of funding and many zeros of $.
Civilizations throughout history ate what they could get, and they certainly didn't complain if they had to eat honey, eggs or animal parts to survive.
You can follow any sort of veg diet that you want - it's your life, and done properly it works. I don't care as long as you don't try to force me into anything or bomb slaughterhouses.
But if the supermarkets closed down, when all the vegs got hungry, I can guarantee they'd start eating animal products rather than starve.
So what like soy bean? very modern.
A carnivore's teeth are long, sharp and pointed. These are tools that are useful for the task of piercing into flesh. Omnivore's ( meat and plant eaters) teeth are similar to that of carnivores. Man's, as well as other herbivore's teeth are not pointed, but flat edged. These are useful tools for biting, crushing and grinding.
A carnivore's jaws move up and down with minimal sideways motion. The jaw motion of an omnivore is similar. These are tools that are useful for the tasks of shearing, ripping and tearing flesh and swallowing it whole. Omnivores swallow their food whole and/or with simple crushing. Man's, as well as other herbivore's jaws cannot shear, but have good side to side and back to front motion. These are tools that are useful for extensive chewing, crushing and grinding of grains and other high fiber foods. Animal flesh cannot be crushed, ground and chewed with the tools Yahweh gave man without some degenerating process such as cooking or frying.
A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. Man's, as well as other herbivore's saliva is alkaline, containing carbohydrate digestive enzymes.
A carnivore's stomach secretes powerful digestive enzymes with about 10 times the amount of hydrochloric acid than a human or herbivore. The pH is less than or equal to "1" with food in the stomach, for a carnivore or omnivore. For humans or other herbivores, the pH ranges from 4 to 5 with food in the stomach. Hence, man must prepare his meats with laborious cooking or frying methods. E. Coli bacteria, salmonella, campylobacter, trichina worms [parasites] or other pathogens would not survive in the stomach of a lion.
A carnivore's or omnivore's small intestine is three to six times the length of its trunk. This is a tool designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. Man's, as well as other herbivore's small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and winds itself back and forth in random directions. This is a tool designed for keeping food in it for long enough periods of time so that all the valuable nutrients and minerals can be extracted from it before it enters the large intestine.
A carnivore's or omnivore's large intestine is relatively short and simple, like a pipe. This passage is also relatively smooth and runs fairly straight so that fatty wastes high in cholesterol can easily slide out before they start to putrefy. Man's, as well as other herbivore's large intestines, or colons, are puckered and pouched, an apparatus that runs in three directions (ascending, traversing and descending), designed to hold wastes that originally were foods high in water content. This is so that the fluids can be extracted from these wastes, now that all the useful nutrients and minerals have been extracted and the long journey through the small intestine is over. Substances high in fat and cholesterol that have been putrefying for hours during their long stay in the small intestine tend to get stuck in the pockets that line the large intestine.
Animal flesh, composed of the most highly complex type of protein that exists, requires vast amounts of uric acid to process. Uric acid is released into the system in amounts necessary to break proteins down into amino acids. Uric acid is a toxic substance responsible for the aging process and must be flushed out and dealt with. That is one of the jobs of the liver. In relative terms, a carnivore's liver is a tool designed with the capacity to eliminate ten times as much uric acid as the liver of man or other plant eater.
A predator has a gait, large paws and claws, which enable him to hunt, chase and trap his prey. These are tools meant to kill. Man's gait, as well as other herbivore's is designed only for mobility. Examine your hand, fingers and fingernails. Is this an apparatus properly designed for catching, trapping, killing and ripping apart cattle, hogs, chicken and fish? How does this work for picking fruit from trees or harvesting vegetables? The foods your hands were meant to gather are typically, high in water content, high also in fiber to sweep the wastes out of those intestines, and collectively contain every vitamin and mineral necessary to sustain human life.
And this is incidentally why, cats being among the most carnivorous drink so little water and have such bad smelling urine- because they have highly efficient kidneys to deal with all that uric acid.
No. We don't have to eat meat to survive. In fact, it's better for us if we don't. Vegetarians and vegans "are 50 percent less likely to develop heart disease, and they have 40 percent of the cancer rate of meat-eaters." Also, "meat-eaters are nine times more likely to be obese than vegans are." The consumption of animal products is linked to a variety of diseases such as asthma and osteoporosis. Our bodies don't need to eat meat, so it's up to our brains to decide what's right. If we're really so smart, we should know that killing animals is wrong.
("Eating for Life." PETA. Go Veg. 14 Dec. 2008. .)
This does not necessarily fit with the question, but seems to fit here better than with any other question in this debate.
I was curious, so I asked a Native American friend about his perspective on this question. I found his answer illuminating, and some here might find it equally illuminating. I'll do my best to communicate his response as accurately as I can.... He said...
"To my people, all living things have a spirit in them. Spirit is in everything, from the grass, to the tree, to the four-leggeds. No living spirit is any better or more important than any other. To live on this earth, we must kill living things with spirits in them to eat and survive. Because no spirit is any better or more important than any other, we must choose which we are going to kill, and which we will allow to live."
"When we take a life, before we do it we make a prayer to the living thing we intend to take. We tell it why we are going to do, and hope that it understands, and maybe can forgive us for what we do. Most people do it the other way around. They do the thing and then ask the forgiveness after. For my people, we ask for the forgiveness, and then do the thing we need to do."
While I'll grant that most do not take this perspective of forgiveness in their meat eating, I found his response very useful. Perhaps others here will get something from it as well.
But there are other religions which promote veganism too. Religions are relative points of view not eternal truths.
Yes, and who is to say which one is "right" and which is "wrong." The vegan religions, the meat eating religions, a political body? I don't think anyone should make that decision FOR us. I think we should make it ourselves as individuals according to our beliefs.
This is why I oppose vegans who want to ban meat for all of us. Prohibition is never a solution to anything. It only creates more problems than it solves.
Yes I agree that no one should make us do anything. But I reserve my right to be vagan. I wish there were more vegan products on the market I could buy.
I'm not sure what your point is. Is this an argument? Also if you are trying to make a valid argument, I do not think John McArdle, Ph.D. is a good resource. His "Talk" is dated and just a commentary as far as I could tell.
The Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP reference is well...just sad. You may want to look into who pays for these "unique research studies". Maybe these folks just did not feel like going to their Anthropology classes. Maybe they thought, and correctly so, that knowing the truth, what is best for our herbivorous bodies and the planet, would not be profitable, or socially acceptable enough for their chosen professions.
If you feel good about animal abuse and the abuse to your body, then so be it. What I am confused about is why you would take the time to support all this abuse!?! Do you wok in the meat industry, or are you a cardiologist? You may want to take a few Anthropology classes yourself, because in fact there is much to support all sides of our dietary choices throughout history, including cannibalism.
You are still missing the point CCF. The point is, no matter what you say about cavemen, today we humans can survive very well on a vegan diet. So there is no need to eat meat to live a healthy life, & all races and peoples can be vegan. Therefore, to choose NOT to, just because we used to, or because we can or want to continue exploiting animals unnecessarily is not a moral justification. Do you understand the argument? The argument is; today, we can all survive beautifully healthily on a vegan diet. Therefore, we do not need to slaughter animals for food. This argument is about the moral choice of doing it now and continuing to do it. What is your moral justification for doing it NOW? We also used to enslave people for thousands of years. We are perfectly biologically capable of continuing to do that to weaker or more disadvantaged people. The point is; we recognise that it is immoral to do that so we don't do it anymore. Get it?
you assume in your arguement that eating meat is morally wrong, but it is the issue of the morality of eating meat that we should be debating.
the 'biologically meant to be' has already been shown to be invalid by Prof. Francione.
Ask yourself: How did our ancestors eat meat before fire was invented? If we really are meant to be eating meat, why can't we eat it raw? And why can't we bear the sight of a butchered cow bleeding to a painful death?
Dr Patrick C Walsh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Urology at John Hopkins University, 30 year Professor and Director of the Brady Urological Institute (1974 - 2004), said this:
"Lately, scientists at Johns Hopkins have begun exploring the relationship between the prostate and seminal vesicles. What we have learned from their work is that the saga of human evolution is also a story of two male glands-both of which produce fluid that makes up semen. One gland, the prostate, is prone to cancer. The other, the seminal vesicle, is remarkably free of it. In nature, animals that are carnivores-meat-eaters like dogs and lions-don't have seminal vesicles. The only animals that have both prostates and seminal vesicles are herbivores-veggie-eating animals like bulls, apes, and elephants. There is only one exception to this rule: humans. Men have seminal vesicles, too. In other words, man, a meat-lover, has the makeup of an animal that should be a vegetarian."
Perhaps the boundaries between carnivores and omnivores are not so clear cut after all- the panda bear has sharp carnivorous teeth- but eats exclusively bamboo. The small South American cat called the flat headed cat- is perhaps the only feline who is omnivorous. Carnivores evolved from insect eaters originally and before that they were tree-dwelling omnivores who ate fruit and berries. There are some bears who are carnivores and some who are omnivores. Just like baboons can sometimes be carnivorous and sometime omnivorous.
William Castelli, Director of the Framingham Heart Study, the world's longest-running epidemiological study says this; "Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rates of coronary disease of any group in the country ... they have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 per cent of our cancer rate."
Carl Linnaeus, the botanist, physician, zoologist, and the "Father of Modern Taxonomy" who established the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature, classified humans as frugivores (fruitarians).
Linnaeus writes: “Man’s structure, internal and external compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables are his natural food.”
His system for naming, ranking, and classifying organisms is still used today.
Colour vision which humans possess is a feature of those who eat fruits and vegetables- it is useful for guaging the ripeness of the fruit. Most carnivores have limited colour vision.
From Wikipedia Raccoon : Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, placed the raccoon in the genus Ursus, first as Ursus cauda elongata ("long-tailed bear") in the second edition of his Systema Naturae, then as Ursus Lotor ("washer bear") in the tenth edition.
From Wikipedia Procyon_(genus) : Genetic studies have shown that the closest relatives of the raccoon are the ring-tailed cats and cacomistles.
From Wikipedia Carl_Linnaeus#Mankind : Linnaeus presented a concept of 'race' as applied to humans, also including mythological creatures. Within Homo sapiens he proposed five taxa of a lower (unnamed) rank. These categories were Africanus, Americanus, Asiaticus, Europeanus, and Monstrosus. They were based on place of origin at first, and later on skin colour. Each race had certain characteristics that he considered endemic to individuals belonging to it. Native Americans were choleric, red, straightforward, eager and combative. Africans were phlegmatic, black, slow, relaxed and negligent. Asians were melancholic, yellow, inflexible, severe and avaricious. Europeans were sanguine and pale, muscular, swift, clever and inventive. (RACIST) The "monstrous" humans included such entities as the "agile and fainthearted" dwarf of the Alps, the Patagonian giant, and the monorchid Hottentot.
I'm not saying the man wasn't brilliant, just that all of his determinations/findings should not automatically be believed and held in high esteem just because they come from him.
Linnaeus' system of organismal nomenclature and classification was completely and totally subjective. Modern classification leans more toward molecular (unbiased) evidence linking common ancestry when classifying extant and extinct organisms.
Rather, just because Linnaeus was of the opinion that mankind 'looks like he should be eating vegetables' doesn't really cut the modern day muster.
I for one agree that man is a true omnivore, but maybe mankind should cut back on eating meat with every single meal.
http://beyondveg.com /
The peer-reviewed studies discussed at this site provide volumes of evidence for humans being omnivorous, for any people interested in reading that side of the argument.
The question is not CAN we eat meat, the question is SHOULD we eat meat?
yes but the arguement that many vegs use is that humans SHOULD not eat meat because it is not healthy for us and it is not healthy for us because we are herbivores who aren't meant to eat meat.
If we are "true omnivores" why are we so selective about which animals we eat? Why do we not salivate when we see and/or smell "road kill"? Why do we have to cook the "meat" to consume it without becoming seriously ill and dying? Ever heard of any other omnivore needing to do that?
We humans do not have claws, we have very delicate fingernails on our delicate fingers. Our teeth are no where near as sharp as "true omnivores" or carnivores. Take a look for yourself. This is not to mention our jaw structure, saliva enzymes, stomach acidity, or the length of our intestines, all of which resemble those of an herbivore.
Imagine this; A human is in the woods and sees a deer a hundred feet away. The human, only on foot, runs down the deer, tackles it to the ground, bites into it's neck which fills the human's mouth with blood. The human then proceeds to rip open the rest of the deer with his/her delicate fingernails and blunt teeth and feast upon the raw, rotting flesh.
Absurd, huh?
Luke...note that other primates...meaning chimpanzees, baboons, and many monkeys EAT MEAT. It is a known fact that these primates, our 'cousins' eat small animals , birds , insects, grubs and even their own babies if the those babies are killed by a raiding group. This indicates that historically, primates are omnivores, not just plant and fruit eaters. And, we are primates.
roadkill is carrion. many carnivores will not eat meat that they have not killed themselves.
We are taught from birth that roadkill is disgusting. Very few people in today's society participate in the slaughter of animals for meat consumption, so seeing any animal carcass that has been violently killed by a car disgusts and revolts them. All of our food , but especially our meats, are served/sold to us in a clean and visually pleasing way, (sometimes even with a little green leaf on the side) so seeing an animal carcass with flies buzzing on it, on the bare earth/asphalt, and with the stink of car exhaust fumes in the air, does understandably not stir our appetites.
The vast majority of humans eat meat from less than a dozen species (excluding fishes) as a part of their REGULAR diet . Cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, duck, clams, etc. Raccoons, armadillos, foxes, crows, cats, and squirrels are not meat animals that most people would consider eating even if served to them on a silver platter.
we may not have claws, but we do have brains that invented tools like: spears, nets, bows, knives, and guns .
But I know, I know, tools aren't naturally occurring characteristics of the human form. Fine. And I agree, as far as the intestinal tract, salivary enzymes, and some other physical attributes are concerned we certainly share those with herbivores. And as omnivores, we can and do eat most of the things that herbivores do, with the exception of some leaves and most grasses. But we also have front-set eyes and canine/incisor teeth (which I don't care what anyone says, are sharp), characteristics shared with - *drumroll* - carnivores. Even if you wanted to say "Well then humans are 80% herbivore," even by that 3rd grade logic, it still leaves 20% for meat.
(let it be known that I am not participating in any kind of moral/choice aspect of the argument, I understand perfectly that in today's world vegetarians/vegans can survive very well)
that the other advantages of having a vegan society (positive environmental impact, huge increase in food resources, better health and wellness) are perks. The most important aspect is the complete moral inconsistency. Racism and sexism are arguably moral issues. They are a huge detriment to our world. The violation of rights, on the whole, is a moral issue.
I started this whole journey for so many reasons other than morality, and until I probed further, I had no idea just how important the moral aspect was. I strongly encourage you to debate the moral aspects until you're blue in the face. Once you're through, I assure you that you'll be left with no good justification for using other species as commodities. It simply makes no sense.
There are many things I'm biologically equipped to do. The reason I do not do them is for reasons that transcend biology. The biology argument will always fall short. Let's move on to the aspects that can truly be awakening.
that the most important thing is that individuals have their life. By basic necessity individuals have formed societies so that this prime directive (to live) is better able to be met. Secondary is being able to satisfy any wants that they can (maximize utility). The satisfaction of wants entails trade-offs both individually and within the society. Our society wants to be able to consume meat and thus has structured itself to be able to do so - at some cost. Your "perks" are the inverse of those costs (what we save by giving up meat) and are strong drivers for change, stronger (for some) than a claim of moral superiority.
I feel you are implicitly limiting your definition of biology in making such a statement. We, as physical beings, are of a biological construction. Our decisions cause an external impact whose response is then fed back into our biological system. That feedback is then analyzed and then used to assist in making further decisions. Ignoring the boundary case of a "first" decision this ever-present biological feedback mechanism is what is responsible for our decisions ("the reason I do not do them"). External input is also provided through these same biological mechanisms. I know of no such non-physical/non-biological means to acquire "reasons" that drive our decisions. I will acknowledge a degree of uncertainly regarding DNA and "innate" decisions but I suspect those are related to self-preservation.
Now as for the physical attributes of us "frugivores." First let me just say that if Linnaeus were correct in his assumption that humans were meant to eat nothing but fruit we wouldn't really be alive. Unless of course his term is some old-timey way of saying "eating things that bear fruiting bodies such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, etc etc."
Either way, granted, humans don't have claws or razor sharp teeth for hunting but we do have these crazy things that help us hunt called "tools" which are arguably the most crucial aspect of what makes us human. So yeah, without tools we probably wouldn't be eating nearly as much meat (much like our primate cousins in the link above), but then again without tools we wouldn't be having this argument because the internet wouldn't exist. Among just about all other things that humans know of. To sum it up with a catch phrase, tools may be necessary for us to hunt, but they also make us human.
Actually yes, I have heard of some other omnivores eating meat without cooking it. Here's some video of it! ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfBC73-Xwg )
Furthermore it's *entirely* possible for humans to eat meat without cooking it and not getting sick (sushi, steak/horse tartare, kibbeh nayyeh), but through thousands of generations of eating meat we've kind of gotten the point that eating unrefrigerated, poorly handled meat (much like roadkill) can become contaminated with unsavory bacteria and make one pretty sick. Which may play a part in why most people - and there are people out there who eat roadkill - don't salivate at the sight or smell of it. I'm going to go ahead and guess that two week old roadkill tastes pretty awful to a human too, but I wouldn't know. The aversion to *actively rotting* meat is a pretty well ingrained cultural and natural behavior.
If we bring modern science to bear on this issue then let's look at the china study and related studies. The overwhelming evidence is that animal proteins lead to chronic diseases and plant proteins do not.
http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html
"any excess can become a vice" a fortune cookie told me that once and it is applicable in many situations, including this one. (ex. a sip of wine can help your heart but too much can kill you)
There is no doubt in my mind that overeating meat products can cause diseases. But eaten in moderate amounts, I also have no doubt that eating chicken nuggets a few times a week will do no harm.
Animal proteins are much more complex than plant proteins so there are more molecular interactions taking place in your body, which means more parts of your body affected and more chances for things to go wrong.
Vitamin B12 can only be attained from eating animals .
You can get B12 from mushrooms too.
Another view of 'man the hunter': http://criticalanimalstudies.blogspot.com/2008/08/from-man-hunter-to-homo-x-rethinking.html
Since your argument is about biologically, let me first ask you what is the difference between eating a cow and a chicken and a deep-sea fish.
If what you are trying to argue is about our anotomy, our body structure, our teeth structure, then I have a few questions for you.
1. are humans adapted to swim into deep sea without any man-made materials?
2. Will any normal human be able to kill a cow by hand?
3. Will any normal human be able to bring a deep-sea fish back to land to eat, or eat it in water, without the person dying?
If all humans can do that, then it proves that humans are adapted to eat those animals.
I am not fighting for totally vegan diets for everyone, but I want to fight for fair diets for everyone. I do not think that we can eat most animals without our man-made tools, using technology.