Humans: Carnivorous?

[Achilles]

Most probably the idea for cooked food came with animals that found their end in bushfires.

Or lightning strikes

[Ray Jones]

I did not talk about burned to coal. Also, in a bush/woodfire not all animals die due to direct contact with fire. The heat can be high enough to cook/roast flesh in case some animal tries to hide where ever but with semi-optimal success. For instance.

[Web Rider]

I did not talk about burned to coal. Also, in a bush/woodfire not all animals die due to direct contact with fire. The heat can be high enough to cook/roast flesh in case some animal tries to hide where ever but with semi-optimal success. For instance.

 

it is possible, though cooked meat is generally best when cooked, and I imagine fires scared off primitive humans. Though, admittedly, it's possible.

[Jae Onasi]

Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell. While it's possible that an animal may be just rightly cooked in a fire, it's very unlikly.

 

Burnt human flesh has a horrible smell. It's nothing like, say, steak on our grill. I think someone decided they wanted warm food on a cold night, stuck the meat in a fire (or it accidentally fell in the fire), decided it tasted good, and there you go.

[Ray Jones]

it is possible, though cooked meat is generally best when cooked, and I imagine fires scared off primitive humans.

I'd be surprised if the "primitive humans" did not recognise very quickly what power fire would give them. I think for a tool using pre-human it's not hard to get that fire delivers warmth and makes meat easier to digest.

 

But the idea to actually cook meat/plants in boiling water does not belong to the early humans of the old stone age anyway. As you might know, to boil water you need fire and a pot and it's pretty unlikely that humans invented the clay pot before they discovered how to use fire-- in fact first records indicating the use of fire are dated around 350000 to 250000 years ago (old stone age/lower paleolithic period), while the oldest (known) clay pots are dated circa 12000 years old (new stone age/neolithic period).

[Weave]

To take the inuit example again: plants in the arctic grow only a few months per year (berries are quite popular in August) and there's no way you can grow veggies there. Eating seal, fish, beluga, cariboo, birds, etc was just a natural thing (but with modern life diet also changes and unfortunately today, junk food has a huge place in that diet too because it's easy to get). The animals there are not seen as cute furry pets but as a normal part of the foodchain and everything has a use: the bones, the skin, the meat, the feathers... Even today, in Nunavik, every village has "community freezers" where hunters take fish, meat and skins to the freezers for the use of other community members.

 

Hmmmm... wouldn't that imply that the Inuits adapted to their icy environment? That, without much heat, and only fish as a main source of food, they were forced to adapt to stomaching raw foods and larger quantities of fish (which may have small amounts of magnesium in them) leading to their hardier digestion.

 

Another thing that I'll use to back-up or inability to eat raw meat, is our very LONG intestines. It takes a long time to pass waste through our digestive system, (similar function between weak omnivores and herbivores) whereas carnivores (and in some cases, strong omnivores) take a much shorter time to pass things through their digestive track. Mostly because hunters are continuously nomadic and need to, eat, take a crap, and move on. Humans are much more sedentary (although back in the days we were nomadic, it doesn't compare to natural born predators).

 

I am also implying that the topic is not worth discussing, though I'm a little late for that. Humans have both carnivorous and herbivorous teeth, and some that are a bit of a mix between the two. Meat eating has been a common facet of many cultures and peoples from all over the world. While humans may not be designed for say, tearing the side out of an antelope, even without tools humans are capable of catching smaller prey, and it's also highly likely that if you picked up a rabbit, you'd be able to bit through it's sides uncooked.

 

You can never be too late to enter a discussion.

Although, like I said earlier, I'm backing up that humans were weak omnivores (bourderline herbivore) not complete vegie eaters. So, We're sort of speculating, what is most natural for a human to eat. As for rabbits, if it was infested with bacteria, that's a pretty big problem for us being completely natural hunters/meat-eaters or extreamely versitile omnivores. Or main defence (IMO) against that stuff is adaptation. Which, isn't natural from the beginning but is instead, an achieved trait.

Plus, I think it's pretty relevant. It is a heated subjct amongst hardcore Vegans, as I have seen

 

Have you ever smelled charred flesh? It's one of the nastiest things you'll ever smell.

 

Then again, humans are rarely canniblistic, and if they are, they do like the smell. I think our pleasure in the smell of meat is some sort of adaptation IMO. Our increased thought makes us easier to adapt willingly. Back then, the sweat from our armpits was an aphrodisiac to our mates. Now, it's a symbol of lack of hygiene (which has a lack of sex appeal). I think the smell of meat is all in our head. I personally don't really find it appealing at all... even when I ate meat. Some of it smelled like puke to me.

 

I don't think it's a question of enzymes or stomach acids breaking down bacteria as much as building up an immune system that can stave off bacterial toxins and infections -- sort of like what you described with your own digestive tract not tolerating cooked meat.

 

Then it's not our stomachs that are the problem. It's our immune systems. Still, it's the same thing, we have a naturally low tolerance to meat... that hasn't really changed.

 

There are a number of humans that consume raw meat on a regular basis. Darth333 has already given the example of the Inuit and Google or Wikipedia will lead a number of other diets based on raw foods (including raw meat).

 

I do know about raw fish. I used to eat it when I started on vegetarianism (Although, since I ate fish, I called myself an Aquatarian ). Mainly, I ate Sushi, Sashimi, and very rare-cooked Talapia etc.

But, that's modern humans who have adapted to such things like that. What is the connection to the first humans?

 

The argument wasn't that meat was necessary for cognitive function, per se, rather that our bodies required more robust sources of protein to sustain increasing body mass/brain size (Lucy was 2.5 feet tall compared to modern females which are typically twice that size and have much larger brains). Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that adopting meat as a food source provided a catalyst for larger bodies/more developed brains.

 

I see what you mean. I'll think on this.

 

The opposite of natural is artifical. Early man (primates?) artificially selected meat as a food source?

 

Perhaps meat is more of a survival thing that humans possibly used to fall back on. Such as in times of food shortages or during low population drops. I'm saying that perhaps, our tendency to begin eating more meat is out of two things:

 

1. pleasure...

2. to ensure the complete survival of our species.

 

It can explain the reason why we have such population crises now is that we eat increased meat. Increased food supply = an increased population... which is unnatural to other species since they keep their own populations balanced. The reason why it explains this is because an animal's natural diet is as balanced as the animal itself. Since we have developed tastes for so many different animals... it may explain that we did this early in history as a means to expand our diet in order to survive catastrophes such as the ice age. Doing so is adaptation.

 

Speculation: And I think that eating more meat may have inevitibly lead to our global overcrowding. Becuase it is a natural 'law' that an increased food supply (which we have the biggest of any animal on the planet) leads to an increased population: hence the reason why solving world hunger is impossible... because EVEN MORE humans would be born and consume those resources. We seriously are a virus.

 

One would have to rule out social bias in IQ tests and the fact that adults tend to have more developed cognitive function than children (brains still developing and all ). It is possible that more veggies have made you smarter. It's also possible that finishing elementary school made you smarter as well

 

Well... all I remember is hating elementary school profusely... when middle-school came around... I was much happier. It may have been a motivational thing.

[Rev7]

Actually, assuming everything's going normally, there are no long term food restrictions after gall bladder surgery. I've been eating red meat for the last 8 years since I had it out. There are some short-term restrictions as the body adjusts to not having a gall bladder, but after that, unless there are specific issues for an individual, there aren't any restrictions.

HMMMMM, I have a teacher that had her gall bladder removed and she said that she CANNOT eat red meat. Maybe she was just misinformed.

[Achilles]

Perhaps meat is more of a survival thing that humans possibly used to fall back on. Such as in times of food shortages or during low population drops. I'm saying that perhaps, our tendency to begin eating more meat is out of two things:

 

1. pleasure...

2. to ensure the complete survival of our species.

Sorry, can't picture early man eating meat to be fashionable. Sure it may have began out of necessity (food shortages in africa are commonly attributed to selection for bipedal locomotion and nomadic tendencies in early man), but our evolved teeth, digestive systems, etc would seem to indicate that it was eventually quite natural for us.

 

Speculation: And I think that eating more meat may have inevitibly lead to our global overcrowding. Becuase it is a natural 'law' that an increased food supply (which we have the biggest of any animal on the planet) leads to an increased population: hence the reason why solving world hunger is impossible... because EVEN MORE humans would be born and consume those resources. We seriously are a virus.

I like how you totally skipped over the Agricultural Revolution and the impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agriculture when speculating that population explosions may have been tied to meat

 

Just pokin' fun at ya

 

Well... all I remember is hating elementary school profusely... when middle-school came around... I was much happier. It may have been a motivational thing.

I hated everything up to my junior hear of high school. *LOVED* college!

[Weave]

Sorry, can't picture early man eating meat to be fashionable. Sure it may have began out of necessity (food shortages in africa are commonly attributed to selection for bipedal locomotion and nomadic tendencies in early man), but our evolved teeth, digestive systems, etc would seem to indicate that it was eventually quite natural for us.

 

Either way, I guess this topic is a little too broad. Mainly since there's so many theories on what humans were back then. Let alone our behavioral habits and what may have been adaptation/evolution... etc.

 

I like how you totally skipped over the Agricultural Revolution and the impact that the Industrial Revolution had on agriculture when speculating that population explosions may have been tied to meat

 

Just pokin' fun at ya

 

Well... I did consider the Agricultural Revolution... but my conclusion is that, that's where our arrogance came from.

 

"Look, we can manipulate the earth! Does that mean that we should rule it?"

 

Just my own bias^^^

 

Anyway, It certainly pushed us to increase our food supply. But meat increases the number of possible resources that we can consume for our diet... increasing our dietary range. And at this day and age... we kill countless millions of animals for food... which was original provoked by our pleasure for meat. The Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions simply increased our productivity. Pursuing more meaty foods and adding more animals has given our increased productivity a chance to make more food for our continually increasing population, which wouldn't be happening if we didn't eat so much meat. Just speculation though.

 

I hated everything up to my junior hear of high school. *LOVED* college!

 

Well my junior year kinda sucks.

Oh well.... things'll come around soon enough...

[John Galt]

But, as Earth's resident sentient species, we DO rule it. Man is the only animal that can shape things according to his will (as in, he has one). This is what seperates us from the animals.

[Totenkopf]

"Look, we can manipulate the earth! Does that mean that we should rule it?"

 

Versus..? Or put another way, if not us, who/what?

[El Sitherino]

How natural is eating meat?

Canine teeth. Discussion over.

[Darth InSidious]

Domesticated animals, canine teeth as Sithy kindly mentioned, drawings of hunting on almost all prehistoric dwellings.

 

You figure it out.

[Q]

Canine teeth. Discussion over.

Exactly. Human teeth can not be accurately described as the teeth of an herbivore.

[Darth InSidious]

Furthermore, may I cite the redundancy of the appendix, a feature that must have ceased being useful and therefore been abandoned by genetics millions of years ago?

[JasraLantill]

Do humans naturally eat meat?

 

Well, chimps do, so I suppose (if you believe in evolution) that it's natural for humans to as well. And, yeah, I agree with Sithy--canine teeth, enough said.

 

Have to say though that the PETA video you linked us to is just bloody awful, but it does show the reality of the corporate farming industry and the consequences of hiring minimum-wage (or less if they're illegal or only casual workers), untrained farm laborers to produce cheaper eggs, dairy (which includes cheese and ice cream, mind), and meat for mass consumption. Having been brought up on a farm (and currently living on one,) I can honestly say that I have never seen such horrible treatment of animals as was shown in that video, whether it be chickens, pigs, or cows. What's shown in that video isn't in any way, shape, or form 'industry standard'.

 

I am particular where I buy my food, and try to buy local as much as possible and free-range or organic when I can't. For example, I *know* my eggs are free range, because I buy them from the farm down the road. I don't mind paying a bit extra for certain items, and if people don't want factory farms to continue, then they should vote with their wallets when it comes purchasing those 'cheap' factory farmed meat, poultry, and dairy products.

 

((I do have to wonder though why PETA didn't include farmed fish in its video. Fish is 'meat', too, after all. And I imagine that some of the 'farmed' fish (catfish, trout, salmon, etc.) are kept in rather cramped conditions. But I guess it's pretty difficult to show a fish as cute and cuddly.))

 

As for protein alternatives, I'm very wary about soy and actively try to avoid it. (Hard though when it seems to be in *everything* nowadays.) I'll get my protein from fish, egg whites, cheese, milk, and the occasional lean Angus-beef steak, thank you very much.

[Weave]

Well let me point out (again) that I support that it is somewhat natural...

As for eating mammoths (early on) I doubt that was ever natural and that we adapted to eating meat: which was influenced by our ability to choose what we eat. I'm saying that, originally, humans were bourderline herbivore/omnivore...

 

Sure, we have canine teeth... but those are small... for small animals. We've adapted to eating large animals which I don't think is natural to begin with. The appendix's usefullness is something we threw off during adaptation.

I'm talking about what we probably originally consumed before our many evolutionary changes. I accept the belief that small animals and perhaps a few medium sized ones (to fall back on during harsh times) were eaten... but eating larger animals? I doubt that was originally part of our diet.

 

As for fish... I have a pretty good video

.

[El Sitherino]

Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

 

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.

 

 

Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

 

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.

 

 

Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

 

*Jae breaks into song--"Attack, of the Killer To-maaaa-toes! Attack, of the Killer To-maaaa-toes!"*

 

To be honest, we can make some educated guesses on this, but I don't know if we'll ever definitively know unless there's just some incredible archaeological find, and I suspect even if we found that, it'd still be very specific to that culture.

The only real decision we get to make is whether we eat as vegetarians or not.

[Weave]

Actually, if anything, we adapted to eating plants.

 

Before we could farm, we hunted. And I'm fairly sure it doesn't take 5 dudes with spears to "kill" a tomato.

 

 

Unless it were the attacking killer kind.

 

Uh... no.

 

You bring up the canines: I'll bring up the mollers. Used for grinding down plants. We were hunters AND gatherers. We gathered plants. Eating plants alone sustains you more than eating meat alone... that's a fact of ALL omnivorous creatures. Where meat has about 3 important nutrients: Protein, Vitamin B12, and Iron... Plants/Fruits, etc... have countless important nutrients. Being carnivourous would never sustain us completely... we HAVE to have some sort of plant nutrients... which is still true today.

 

To be honest, we can make some educated guesses on this, but I don't know if we'll ever definitively know unless there's just some incredible archaeological find, and I suspect even if we found that, it'd still be very specific to that culture.

The only real decision we get to make is whether we eat as vegetarians or not.

 

Tis' True. Still... debating never hurt, eh?

*plus, conversion scheme was somewhat successful *

-cough- -ahem-

Being a one-man army defending bourderline herbivore/omnivore is tiring too.

 

Thread closed then?

[Darth InSidious]

Well if you want the archaeological theory, we were originally a hunter-gatherer species. That means hunting (meat) and gathering (other foodstuffs), for those who find this stuff difficult to follow. Omnivorousness seems likely. Besides, have you ever tried an all-meat diet? The medieval/early modern European monarchs were into it. Not. Healthy.

[Ray Jones]

Originally (read: 3 million years ago) we supposedly were omnivorous gatherers/scavangers living in the forests. We only came out of the forrest when there was nothing to find (like small animals, insects, eggs but also fruits, nuts, roots, other eatable parts of plants) to seek for these things in the savannah/grasslands. Most probably we also found (and ate) bigger dead animals and what carnivores left over.

 

Later it seems, we left our secure home more often (also due to climatic changes causing the rain forest to disappear with the time) to strive through the grasslands and also developed tactics to scare even relatively big animals off their dead prey, so the quality of what we got got better. Basically we weren't hunters but thieves who stole other animals' meals. But in the end this seems to be the small but needed change in our diet (more, better meat, and thus more proteins) that caused our brain to develop and change rapidly (in evolutional terms).

 

The next step (also a result of the meaty diet) was that our tools and weaponry became so good that we, instead of just scaring them off, were able to hunt down other, if not all, even carnivorous animals.

 

Since that point we were hunters. Hunters by the means of "Four legs but not table, couch or chair? *stab*mnyumyumhumnumomnomnomnomnom*burp*!!"

 

As for the "relatively small canines" which were supposedly only good for "relatively small prey", we've never really used them to hunt down whatever sized animal, but used them to eat whatever sized animal. Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).

 

 

 

[edit]

 

Ok, I did some further research and found something interesting:

 

It is believed that we somehow developed from the Australopithecus, whose ancestors seemed to be "fruit eaters" only. As mentioned earlier, due to climate changes it happened that the rain forest slowly disappeared and the environment changed towards being Savannah/grassland offering only harder to eat and digest nuts, roots, seeds instead of juicy fruits and leafs of the rain forest.

 

Current theories support the idea that there were different genetic lines of the Australopithecus. Some, like Australopithecus africanus (believed ancestors of the species homo), became omnivorous, and some became herbivorous (like Australopithecus robustus) and specialised to being able to eat hard roots and the like, which was for that climate and environment a perfect "move". However, climate changes happen to be of a somewhat static nature, and thus the very specialised herbivorous line was not able to adapt fast enough and accordingly at some point and went extinct.

 

What does that mean? The ancestors of our ancestors were most probably herbivores specialised to eat fruits (only). But our (direct) ancestors only had the chance to make it because they were able to eat omnivorous, and with that had the better diet compared to hard and dry plants. Is it naturally to eat meat? Yes. And without we would most probably not be here discussing this.

[Weave]

Originally (read: 3 million years ago) we supposedly were omnivorous gatherers/scavangers living in the forests. We only came out of the forrest when there was nothing to find (like small animals, insects, eggs but also fruits, nuts, roots, other eatable parts of plants) to seek for these things in the savannah/grasslands. Most probably we also found (and ate) bigger dead animals and what carnivores left over.

 

Seems to support my belief of bourderline herbivore/omnivore since we were scavengers who ate mostly small kills.

 

As for the "relatively small canines" which were supposedly only good for "relatively small prey", we've never really used them to hunt down whatever sized animal, but used them to eat whatever sized animal. Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).

 

Another thing that supports that we were (and still are) only specialized for a mix of an omnivorous/herbivourous diet is how our teeth don't grow back after we loose our permanents.

 

It is believed that we somehow developed from the Australopithecus, whose ancestors seemed to be "fruit eaters" only. As mentioned earlier, due to climate changes it happened that the rain forest slowly disappeared and the environment changed towards being Savannah/grassland offering only harder to eat and digest nuts, roots, seeds instead of juicy fruits and leafs of the rain forest.

 

Fruit eaters only, eh? Haven't heard that one before.

 

Current theories support the idea that there were different genetic lines of the Australopithecus. Some, like Australopithecus africanus (believed ancestors of the species homo), became omnivorous, and some became herbivorous (like Australopithecus robustus) and specialised to being able to eat hard roots and the like, which was for that climate and environment a perfect "move". However, climate changes happen to be of a somewhat static nature, and thus the very specialised herbivorous line was not able to adapt fast enough and accordingly at some point and went extinct.

 

Interesting.

 

What does that mean? The ancestors of our ancestors were most probably herbivores specialised to eat fruits (only). But our (direct) ancestors only had the chance to make it because they were able to eat omnivorous, and with that had the better diet compared to hard and dry plants. Is it naturally to eat meat? Yes. And without we would most probably not be here discussing this.

 

Is it natural to eat meat? Some meats are very natural: while others are artificially put into our diet. Still, all this supports that we are specialized in eating small animals, due to the size of our canine teeth, and lots of vegies, due to our many dull teeth such as the mollers. So, it definitely supports that we're carnivorous to a certain extent: hence my theory, weak omnivore/herbivore. Meat seems to be much more of an evolutionary trait than eating plants.

 

Either way, thanks for the research ! Especially the tid-bit about fruit eaters... never knew that. It's odd too since eating too many fruits now-a-days isn't really good for us. Then again... if we all excersized a bit more... that probably wouldn't be too much of a problem

Plus, we may have thrown off much of the "yolk" that depended on eating fruit as time passed. blah blah blah [/rant]

[Ray Jones]

Seems to support my belief of bourderline herbivore/omnivore since we were scavengers who ate mostly small kills.

Scavangers usually do not kill at all. And borderline herbivore or not does not matter, since it was the ability to eat something else than plants that brought us through, not the other way around.

 

 

Also, it's not uncommon that teeth for instance grow back with the time when they are not necessary for a species to survive. But since we (still) have them, and it's pretty obvious what these are used for, we were "meat" eaters from the begin with (omnivorous, but still).

Another thing that supports that we were (and still are) only specialized for a mix of an omnivorous/herbivourous diet is how our teeth don't grow back after we loose our permanents.

I think my language was somewhat bad, because what I had in mind was "develop back", not "grow back".

 

Also, I don't think the fact that our teeth are only growing twice has nothing to do with our diet, since mammals, regardless of their diet, usually grow teeth only twice. Fishes and reptiles grow their teeth more often.

 

 

Is it natural to eat meat? Some meats are very natural: while others are artificially put into our diet.

"Artificially put into our diet?" I don't think so. Like everywhere else around the world, what can be eaten goes down the throat. Any tiger will, when hungry, not stop at your neighbour's dog just because he's not at his 'natural meat' list. Of course, usually any hunting animal will not attack something much bigger than its own size, but zebras and gnus are not necessarily smaller than the average lion is. The reason why we attacked mammoths is not to artificially put something on our diet, but because we were able to and one mammoth gave food for months and useful materials like its fur, bones and teeth for weapons, tents and ornaments. If a lion could hunt down an elephant, he would do. Also, even the biggest animal, if not ripped apart by any scavangers, will be eaten by pretty damn small things without any form of teeth: bacterias.

 

 

Still, all this supports that we are specialized in eating small animals, due to the size of our canine teeth, and lots of vegies, due to our many dull teeth such as the mollers.

Really? My point would rather be that we don't have bigger canines because we're specialised to find ways to make big animals small so we didn't need to develop bigger ones. And again, we were more specialised for a carnivorous diet, since vegetation became pretty bad food, and that was our advance compared to the other, more towards herbivorous diet specialised Australopithecus.

 

 

It's odd too since eating too many fruits now-a-days isn't really good for us.

Do not forget, it's not us humans. It's more like pre-pre-humans from 4-3 million years ago or something. That is *a lot* of time to change and to adapt.

 

I mean we're not looking exactly like a 4' hairy something either.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yes, it's natural. In fact, we've been eating meat for so long it is natural.

 

Weave - Your argument about building up a tolerance to meat rests upon sloppy foundations. Most of your evidence is anecdotal at best. In fact, to your hypothesis about it being a biological element, I believe it to be psychological. The rejection is a result of your mind telling you it's wrong to eat meat thus the body responds accordingly.

 

Being omnivorous, I think, gives humans a great advantage in terms of survivability in every possible environment as D333 pointed out. When you look at the species that are the least affected by a change in the ecosystem, most if not all are omnivorous. Roaches for example, can eat absolutely anything and they've outlived almost everything.

 

Then there's the question of overpopulation. Simply putting in on the back of a single factor is highly simplistic. On one hand, the industrial production brought food stores to an incredible high, which ensured a bigger population. Then again, this holds for the western countries, as southern and eastern populations also saw a rise in their population without the incredible technological advancement to back it up. Famine still swept those regions, yet they outnumber the westerners today.

The humans also don't have any predator to keep its population in check. In fact, with our ability to cure diseases, there is literally nothing to properly balance out our population. The advances in medicine contribute to the greater lifespan of humans in our modern world.

 

So meat being a factor of overpopulation? I don't think so.