It's a compact source of energy and nutrients.The Guid wrote:I would ask why on earth we started eating meat since apparently we are so unadapted to it etc.
Even a lot of animals considered true herbivores will eat animal flesh of some sort. Cows, sheep, goats, and deer all consume insects with their plant diet. There's even a parasite that cycles between ants and cows that depends on the fact cows eat insects in order to continue to exist. Deer in Upper Pennisula of Michigan and on Isle Royale have been observed eating fish washed up on the shores of the Great Lakes. Cockatiels, who are undisputably primary seed-eaters, not only relish the occassional insect or three but the ones at my house will also happily raid your roast beef sandwhich - no doubt, they seldom eat cow in the wild but that has more to do with size differential than inability to digest mammal meat. In fact, the health and longevity of several parrot species kept in captivity has improved significantly over the past couple of decades with the recognition that, although mostly vegetarian in diet parrots actually ARE omnivores. Of course, if folks had just bothered to observe wild macaws hunting rabbits in the wild (which they do occassionally) they might have known that.
Hummingbirds, those quintessential nectar-sippers, are also dependant on consuming the insects found also sipping nectar in those same flowers. Without that dab of animal protein they weaken and are unable to successfully fledge their young.
The argument that chimps don't hunt and/or eat meat it bogus. Goodall's early research - which the website quotes - seemed to indicate that, but her later research (here conviently ignored) not only documents delibrate (and cooperative!) hunting of small monkeys and other prey by chimps, and willingness to scavenge meat, but it also documents delibrate canabalism. Hmm... if we're supposed to follow a chimp-like diet, should we be eating the occassional fellow human?
In any case, even a close evolutionary relationship doesn't dictate similar diet. The giant panda is most closely related to either bears or raccoons, but has a radically different diet - it subsists almost entirely on bamboo, and eats no animal protein (aside from contaminating insects, presumably) despite its pointy teeth, lack of sweat glands, and relatively short intestinal tract for a dedicated herbivore. Nor could a bear or raccoon subsist on the diet that pandas thrive on. (The giant panda is, in fact, a good counter-argument to intelligent design, being a strange collection of jury-rigs to turn a former omnivore/carnivore into an herbivore. Any diety that "designed" this animal must have had a 3-day bender just before starting the project)
Actually, there are ample cases of humans in hunting prime of life (15-40 years of age) running down rabbits, ambushing various fowl, and catching fish with their bare hands. It's not easy and it takes practice, but humans ARE quite capable of capturing small prey unassisted by technology.Meat-eaters have fast enough reflexes to ambush or overtake a victim. You do not. Try catching a pig or a chicken with your bare hands; see what happens.
Coyotes can't run down a rabbit on the unobstructed flat, either - which is why they don't try it. They sneak up and ambush, and that's what humans do. Lions can't outrun antelopes on the flat, that's why they stalk and pounce. Cheetahs are the only mammalian hunters that really can outrun their prey... but only over very short distances. The only predators that routinely exceed the speed of their prey are hunting birds, and even they attempt to approach without alerting their prey. Predatory reptiles rely on ambush-and-pounce. There are whole categories of predatory fish that rely on camoflague-and-ambush, and others in the ambush-and-pounce, and even fast predators like sharks and tuna will sneak up on dinner whenever possible. The whole idea that predators rely solely on speed to eat is bogus.
Humans use technology because it makes us better hunters, able to bring in more protein/fat with less of our own energy expended, and also at less risk to our own selves.
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Don't humans have a stronger, deadlier bite than some dogs?
Humans have a filthier bite than dogs. Human bites are far more likely to become infected than dog or cat bites. The grinding action of a human jaw can cause as much damage - although of a different sort and character - as a small domestic dog or housecat bite. The human jaw is sufficiently strong to crack small bones, such as found in fingers, at least in some cases.
Not that it matters whether the animal biting you is a carnivore or herbivore in many cases. A horse is a dedicated herbivore but a horse bite can sever human fingers. I know of one instance where a draft horse bit off the arm of a small child. Just because the biter doesn't chew and swallow doesn't mean the bite isn't serious. Anything that stands around grinding up plant food 16 hours a day is going to have some serious biting equipment.
About 10 years, on average - assuming you start with normal/adequate reserves. However, by the time overt symptoms appear the damage is done and it's permanent. You can't reverse the neurological damage by consuming B12, only halt progression.Justforfun000 wrote:Well...It's not THAT extreme...you would need to go an extremely long time as a TRUE vegan before the B12 deficiency would even be serious....years from what I recall..
There are two types of healthy, strict vegetarians: those who use supplements, and those with contaminated foodstuffs.There are many cultures that do fine on a vegetarian diet, and it can be a very healthy lifestyle choice
Certain traditional societies are held up as examples of "pure" vegetarianism or even veganism. For example, Jains are forbidden to kill, even insects. In India, generations have been born, lived, reproduced, and died all apparently on an animal-free diet in good health. Then Britain started reporting B12 deficiency other other problems in Jains that had been living in Britain for extended periods. The eventual determination was that back in India much of the food consumed by Jains had some form of contamination - small insects, insect feces, and rodent feces - which were providing enough trace nutrients to keep everyone healthy (you can extract B12 from most animal shit... but somehow I doubt that's anyone's first choice...) Britain's much stricter regulations regarding contamination resulted in food with almost no such "supplements". And it's insect and fecal contamination that keeps many a "primative" vegetarian healthy in regards to trace nutrients.
This also side-steps the whole issue of vegetarians in India consuming significant quantities of dairy, either as milk, cheese, yoghurt, or the favorite cooking oil ghee, which is derieved from butter, that is, milk fat. Diary products, including ghee, are sources of B12.
The ideal human diet probably would consist of somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 the meat of a normal western diet, with that replaced by vegetables and fruit. But there's really no one "ideal" diet - the ideal would vary with age, physical activity, and individual variation. Human children NEED fats and oils to grow and mature properly. A man engaged in heavy physical labor, or a mother nursing a child, require significantly more calories than a sedentary adult of either gender. Many adult humans are unable to digest lactose and should consume little or no dairy. Many humans are intolerant to gluten and should avoid many grains. A variation in the Mediterranean area that protects against malaria puts fava beans (among others) permanently off limits. As humans age they require fewer high-calorie foods -- up to a point, because in very old age the digestive tract is less efficient and high calorie foods maintain energy better. Women require more calcium and iron than men. And so on, and so forth. There is no one, perfect diet for all humanity.
)
