OUCH!!!!!!!!! Not for the faint of heart! You've been warned...

Paleontological evidence says no.

Homo Neanderthalensis - a close cousin species, the 'Neanderthals' - were just about obligate carnivores.

Cro-Magnons - a branch leading to us, Homo Sapiens - were omnivores.
Paleontological evidence says different things for different timeperiods. As Drew pointed out, we started out as gatherers/vegetarians, than came scavenging, than hunting, than farming.
Even if at some point of time during the ice age, humanoids had to rely mostly on meat, those times were harsh and average lifespan was low.
At best this period shows the adaptiveness of humanoid (still not todays humans) digestion to extreme conditions, not the ideal way of today´s human nutrition.
And of course: The Neanderthals DIET OUT.


We're omnivores not by some kind of conscious choice, but by virtue of having the dentition and metabolic ability to consume and benefit from meat as well as vegetable nutrients.
Our dentition doesn´t even come close to resemble that of a carnivore. Try biting off a dead mouse´s head for a proof.
The way our digestiv system is layed out also implies that we are not meant to heavily rely on the digestion of meat: Low stomic acid, which makes it imposible to break down bones and long bowels, which is very problematic for getting rid of ptomanie/cadaveric poison.
So "omnivore" again simply acknowledges the fact, that we CAN digest meat, not that we MUST.


Not to mention that on an evolutionary time-scale the available evidence demonstrates that human cooperation developed to support hunting, not farming.
If you quote literature from the 60s, yes.
Modern resarch, in an overhaul of a lot of research that was kind of bound to a patriarchic biased paleontology, emphazizes the importance of a more sustainable way of providing food for the clan/family.
Everybody who ever tried hunting down a boar with a spear will agree, that this isn´t the best way to asure constant availability of food.
(Well, John Rambo CAN of course...)
So most likely gathering and agriculture played the more important role to ensure constant nutrition, for the hunters on their hunt and for the women and children while waiting for their return.
This also lead to a high level of interdependency and cooperation, much more time consuming and complex than organising a hunt...


Yes, some people can get by quite well and be very healthy as vegans (with relentless supplementation and dietary monitoring). It's not baseline-normal for everyone.
No, most people can "get by" with an all plant based diet, without "relentless supplementation and dietary monitoring".
"Supplements" are mostly for people on the so called "Standard American Diet" (SAD - no pun intended), who still believe by eating some pills, they can enjoy steak/burger/hot dogs/ fries all day long.
"Dietary monitoring" is needed for the majority of this people on a SAD, who are obese and/or have diabetes and/or heart disease.
Why are you defaming sth even the pretty conservative ADA (American Dietetic Association) has the following to say about:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

Do you have other research on this...?

The baseline for me is: since I don´t need animal products to sustain a healthy AND tasty diet, why should I inflict all that pain and suffering to animals?
 
Only because he got horny.

I came back to this thread, clicking page 6 and skipping page 5. I thought the conversation had gone into the whole "men want to deposit DNA as much as possible while women want one man to provide resources" discussion from evolutionary psychology. :)
 
You know, after the shock fades and you can look at the picture its actually a really great photograph. The composition. The posing. Almost like a painting.
 
The only thing that makes bullfighting tolerable for me is the fact that despite the odds being stacked against him, sometimes the bull wins. I'm sorry, I can't help it, it's not out of malice toward the bullfighters, but I always root for the bull

Agreed. I'm not against hunting but I think the same rules should apply. Don't go into the wild with your high powered rifle taking shots at lions/tigers/bears 100's of feet away riding in a hum-vee.

If you want to "conquer" the jungle then go old school and do it. Where is the sport in going into an animals habitat with all the hi-tech gear and taking him down from long range?

Take the Maasai warriors of Kenya for example, they form a hunting party, go into the jungle on foot, armed with a spear and a shield and sometimes not everyone makes it back.

You mess with the bull and you, quite possibly, get the horns.
 
I went to undergrad school in central New York. Every deer season two to six hunters would wound or kill each other, usually being careless and firing before confirming their targets.

Always impressed me as fair: you're going out into the woods with the firm intention of killing something. Well, it's only proper that you take some degree of risk, too.
 
When I was in college I went to a few bullfights in Juarez. It was much more interesting watching the people in the stadium and their reactions. They took it VERY seriously.
 
I went to undergrad school in central New York. Every deer season two to six hunters would wound or kill each other, usually being careless and firing before confirming their targets.

Always impressed me as fair: you're going out into the woods with the firm intention of killing something. Well, it's only proper that you take some degree of risk, too.
Makes you think, where are you most safe from gun shots, the woods or New York? :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Back
Top