My response to people that say humans HAVE to eat meat...

I always say that the vegetarians who tell me they don't eat meat because of the guilt about ending the life of an animal are full of *kitten* with all the respect. Living beings are living beings, and under the microscope they all have living cells, INCLUDING vegetables. Just because a tree doesn't have a heart doesn't mean it is not a living organism that will die when you cut it. What happens when you cut a flower and leave it on a table? It will die and dry. Same thing happens when you cut veggies and eat them. So that whole "guilt" is nothing but pure hypocrisy.

PS. Now shoot me :bigsmile:

I'm not going to say anything about what's good or not for anyone, we all eat what we want, and aside from the fact that over eating and processed food is what causes obesity and other health factors, the following is very true in my opinion.

(let's say it is organic food and you eat exactly this for the rest of your life)

- Eat both meat and veggies and drink water = live a regular life
- Eat veggies only and drink water = live a regular life
- Eat meat only and drink water = I don't know how long you'll last

Been on and off with vegan, but declare my self as a vegetarian now. I have made the switch to soy milk, ice-cream, and other soy products, but honestly, there is no good substitute cheese in my opinion, and I like cheese. I buy all my food organic and all natural at Whole Foods however, making the cheese i buy better than what you find at walmart. Good luck, stay strong, and make sure you are giving your body what it needs

If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then why do we have those pesky incisor teeth. They are for ripping and tearing....meat. And yes, most eastern cultures survive on non meat diets......and they are 5'2" and way 100 pounds. They don't eat meat because they can't affort it, not because it's a choice. Let's go stand in some communist chinese families house. You can hand them a bowl of rice and some broccoli and tell them how awesome their non meat diet is. I'll be sitting in the corner not saying a word with a four 18 oz Ribeyes. I'm willing to bet they will beat you silly with a bottle of soy sauce and join me for a real dinner.

Gee, here is a photo of a carnivore. I assume that next to your post, that is your picture. You know something, your teeth do not look the same. Here is some advice for you:

Stalk a big, feisty watermelon, as big as you can find. Jump it, and bring it down. Go for the soft underbelly or the genitals. Then when it is on the ground break its neck. Then dig into the juicy red meat.

Awaiting your report.

Just for the record: Of course we don't look like that, because we are not carnivores. We are omnivores, so we have teeth both to eat plants and to eat meat with. Goodness.

It is nice to see rational vegetarians, vegans, and meat lovers in this thread (of course, mixed in with the amusing evangelists on either side).

Since a herbivore is an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore is an animal that eats mostly meat, what is an omnivore? Seriously. I have never heard a defintion of omnivore that makes sense. And don't say an animal that eats both meat and vegetables, since most herbivores and most carnivores do that. A carnivore or herbivore is defined by dentition, mandibular structure and size of intestines, among other things. And yes, if humans were carnivores we WOULD look like that.

If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then why do we have those pesky incisor teeth. They are for ripping and tearing....meat. And yes, most eastern cultures survive on non meat diets......and they are 5'2" and way 100 pounds. They don't eat meat because they can't affort it, not because it's a choice. Let's go stand in some communist chinese families house. You can hand them a bowl of rice and some broccoli and tell them how awesome their non meat diet is. I'll be sitting in the corner not saying a word with a four 18 oz Ribeyes. I'm willing to bet they will beat you silly with a bottle of soy sauce and join me for a real dinner.

Gee, here is a photo of a carnivore. I assume that next to your post, that is your picture. You know something, your teeth do not look the same. Here is some advice for you:

Stalk a big, feisty watermelon, as big as you can find. Jump it, and bring it down. Go for the soft underbelly or the genitals. Then when it is on the ground break its neck. Then dig into the juicy red meat.

Awaiting your report.

Just for the record: Of course we don't look like that, because we are not carnivores. We are omnivores, so we have teeth both to eat plants and to eat meat with. Goodness.

It is nice to see rational vegetarians, vegans, and meat lovers in this thread (of course, mixed in with the amusing evangelists on either side).

Since a herbivore is an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore is an animal that eats mostly meat, what is an omnivore? Seriously. I have never heard a defintion of omnivore that makes sense. And don't say an animal that eats both meat and vegetables, since most herbivores and most carnivores do that. A carnivore or herbivore is defined by dentition, mandibular structure and size of intestines, among other things. And yes, if humans were carnivores we WOULD look like that.

The way I understand it, being an omnivore is like being bisexual--you can swing both ways.

If humans weren't supposed to eat meat, then why do we have those pesky incisor teeth. They are for ripping and tearing....meat. And yes, most eastern cultures survive on non meat diets......and they are 5'2" and way 100 pounds. They don't eat meat because they can't affort it, not because it's a choice. Let's go stand in some communist chinese families house. You can hand them a bowl of rice and some broccoli and tell them how awesome their non meat diet is. I'll be sitting in the corner not saying a word with a four 18 oz Ribeyes. I'm willing to bet they will beat you silly with a bottle of soy sauce and join me for a real dinner.

-image-

Gee, here is a photo of a carnivore. I assume that next to your post, that is your picture. You know something, your teeth do not look the same. Here is some advice for you:

Stalk a big, feisty watermelon, as big as you can find. Jump it, and bring it down. Go for the soft underbelly or the genitals. Then when it is on the ground break its neck. Then dig into the juicy red meat.

Awaiting your report.

Just for the record: Of course we don't look like that, because we are not carnivores. We are omnivores, so we have teeth both to eat plants and to eat meat with. Goodness.

It is nice to see rational vegetarians, vegans, and meat lovers in this thread (of course, mixed in with the amusing evangelists on either side).

Since a herbivore is an animal that eats mostly vegetables, and a carnivore is an animal that eats mostly meat, what is an omnivore? Seriously. I have never heard a defintion of omnivore that makes sense. And don't say an animal that eats both meat and vegetables, since most herbivores and most carnivores do that. A carnivore or herbivore is defined by dentition, mandibular structure and size of intestines, among other things. And yes, if humans were carnivores we WOULD look like that.

The way I understand it, being an omnivore is like being bisexual--you can swing both ways.

Williams is also unequivocal about humans being herbivores:

"Although we think we are one, and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings who are natural herbivores." - William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of Cardiology.

Perhaps for the other 1/4 of your Ph.D. you can learn what characteristics separate herbivores from carnivores:

Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.

Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.

Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

Oversimplistic either/or views of carnivorous adaptations. The various comparative "proofs" of vegetarianism often rely heavily on comparisons with true carnivores, e.g., lions, tigers, etc. The basic arguments made are that meat cannot be a "natural" food for humans, because humans don't have the same physical features characteristic of the small group of animals that are considered to be "true" carnivores. However, such arguments are based on an oversimplified and flawed view of adaptation; that is, the underlying assumption being that there is only one--or at least one main set of--physical adaptation(s) consistent with eating meat. Such arguments also ignore the high intelligence and adaptive behavior of humans.


...

Logical problems of the comparative proofs

The above physical comparisons are accurate--clearly, humans do not have the jaws, teeth, or claws of a lion. However, to use this information to conclude that humans "cannot" eat meat, or "must have" the same physical traits as other predators to do so, or did not adapt to meat in the diet, is logically invalid and bogus. A short list of errors in reaching the above conclusion is as follows:

Focusing on purely carnivorous adaptations rather than omnivorous ones. One clarification should be made immediately: This paper does not suggest that humans are true carnivores adapted for a nearly pure-meat diet. Although it may be that humans might be able to do well on such a diet (e.g., the traditional diet of the Inuit), the focus of this paper is to investigate whether meat can be considered a natural part of the human diet--certainly the paleoanthropological evidence supports that view. Thus the focus here is not on the bogus issue "are humans pure carnivores?" but on "are humans faunivores/omnivores?"

Invalid black-and-white views. The conclusion above (that meat "cannot" be a natural part of the human diet) is based on a simplistic (incomplete/invalid) view of adaptation. That is, the conclusion is based on the implicit assumption that the specific physical adaptations of the lion, tiger, etc., are the ONLY adaptations that can serve their intended function, i.e., meat-eating. Inasmuch as meat is a small but significant part of the diet of chimps, however--who also lack the carnivore adaptations (sharp teeth, claws, etc.)--we observe that the assumption is obviously false.

Various oversimplistic assumptions. The analysis is simplistic and makes many of the mistakes listed in the preceding section--i.e., it assumes the form/function linkage is strict, fails to recognize that the same form can serve multiple functions, etc.

Overlooked differences in adaptive behavior. The analysis ignores critical differences in feeding behavior, i.e., the ones relating to the hunting/feeding behavior of omnivorous primates (e.g., the chimp) in the wild, which is well-known to be different from that of lions and tigers. Also, adaptive behavior (enhanced via human intelligence and technology--tools) allows humans to easily overcome many of the physical limitations of our physical form and morphology.

Impact of tool use and language on morphology disregarded. The analysis ignores the impact that human intelligence has had on morphology, specifically the evolutionary effect of technology (stone tools and cooking), as well as possible morphological changes to support language--yet another unique human feature.

Obvious explanations rationalized away as "illegitimate." A simple, summary answer to the question of how humans can hunt animals and eat meat without the physical adaptations of the lion and tiger is the obvious one implicitly ignored and rationalized by the advocates of simplistic comparative "proofs": We don't need sharp teeth, powerful jaws, or claws to capture and butcher animals because we have used (since our inception as a genus ~2.5 million years ago) tools (or technology--stone weapons) for that purpose. Over the eons, evolution itself has adapted our physiologies to the results of this behavior along unique lines, quite regardless of the hue and cry over the "illegitimacy" with which these behaviors/skills are regarded by those extremists promoting the bizarre idea that human dietary behavior should be strictly limited to what we could do "naked, without tools."

Technology, driven by our intelligence, supports adaptive behavior that allows us to easily overcome the physical limitations that the comparative "proofs" regard (incorrectly) as being limiting factors. Along similar lines, we don't need the strong bodies of a lion or tiger because we have something much more powerful: high intelligence, which allowed humans to become the most efficient hunters, and the dominant mammalian species, on the planet.

We aren't carnivores. We're OMNIVORES.

Define OMNIVORE in a way that it cannot mean either a tiger or a mouse.