Are we omnivores?

[xrodolfox]

I will stay out of this question. Having been vegan for a while makes these elementary and repetitive questions mundane. I prefer no to expend energy on the hypothetical when in the end it's still an "appeal to nature" fallacy we are talking around.

An appeal to nature would be the statement, "we are naturally omnivores, therefore we need to currently be omnivores and should not be vegan." That's not the statement or question that was asked. I think (hope) most here are well aware that we can choose to be vegans now even if we are or are not naturally omnivores.

Anyway, I have a question that is more interesting to me: is the statement above that I presented an appeal to nature? I think it is not. Isn't an appeal to nature the statement that something is good just because it is natural? If bodies were optimised for an omnivorous diet then it is difficult to argue against an omnivorous diet having the potential to be "good": even if it is not the only "good" diet. This does not inherently lead to anything against a vegan diet, so the statement is still wrong - but for different reasons, not an appeal to nature. ...also maybe I have missed Rodolfo's point entirely! (I ask because I have been in this exact argument before )

You and I have the same exact point. It was me that was unclear. You said it much more clearly. The reason I stated "appeal to nature" is because there's two ways to reduce the answer to this question: either humans are "meant" to be omnivores (optimized only to eat animals and anything else is severely deficient), which is an appeal to nature; or being omnivorous means that there's a variety of healthy diets out there, some meat eating diets amongst them, and some vegan diets amongst the healthy/optimal diets as well. I tend to discard the second in message because it isn't used by trolls much. That's the point of view I subscribe to, and others can argue for that. I itch irritatingly just thinking about folks putting for the first argument that reduces to an appeal to nature because that's incredibly common for trolls and a prevailing argument amongst folks I talk to in person that think veganism is terrible.

I think we were saying something quite similar; I just made the assumption that if this discussion wasn't going to be reasonable, it'd end up in the appeal to nature arguments rather than the mundane and obvious "many diets can be optimal, and many diets can be less than optimal, including vegan and non-vegan diets".

Doesn't it seem strange that a person should choose a username such as "cobalamin" and appear on a vegan forum trying to start a discussion on whether or not human are naturally omnivores... ? Probably just me thinking too much...

Thanks for pointing that out.

Cobalmin is another name for vitamin B-12... which is often one of those vitamins that anti-vegans bring up to "trump" that vegans will die soon, or that a vegan diet is less than optimal, or even deadly. I am trying to stay away from making assumptions without direct evidence.

This Cobalmin person might just be a fellow vegan who loves B-12. There's several of those around. I don't know.

No intro thread yet.

My promise to stay out has been thwarted by my ego once again.

[cobalamin]

@xrodolfox

I accept your apology.

I understand trolls popping up however it would be more constructive if discussions were taken in a more relaxed manner. Simply asking whether someone is a troll or not seems like the least disruptive way to go.

I hope that we all learn't something from this thread and I am also hopeful a fruitful discussion can come about from this point forward.

I definitely don't eat animal products however I wouldn't call myself vegan. I enjoy basketball, soccer, football, swimming and my own fitness sport, HIBS(High Intensity Barefoot Sprinting).

I will stay out of this question. Having been vegan for a while makes these elementary and repetitive questions mundane. I prefer no to expend energy on the hypothetical when in the end it's still an "appeal to nature" fallacy we are talking around.

Correct however what about taking into account human evolution. Did a mutation happen in the human brain from eating meat/fish or simply from being active or bipedalism. There are a lot of important questions.

I for one, feel a lot better when I am active.

Doesn't it seem strange that a person should choose a username such as "cobalamin" and appear on a vegan forum trying to start a discussion on whether or not human are naturally omnivores... ? Probably just me thinking too much...

Not at all. Whether we make Vitamin B12 or not has no basis if we are omnivores or not.

[xrodolfox]

Correct however what about taking into account human evolution. Did a mutation happen in the human brain from eating meat/fish or simply from being active or bipedalism. There are a lot of important questions.

Personally, it seems most likely that human "intelligence" became an optimal niche adaptation (when mutations happen is less relevant to evolution, eh?), was when proto humans started to develop culture and complex social groups.

After all, the most intelligent animals aren't defined by what they eat (or don't eat), but rather by the complexity of learned behaviors gathered from social groups, and from the need to evaluate things like whether a fellow social group member is lying or cheating or telling the truth. Think dolphins, apes, elephants, etc. The more social, the more intelligent. What an animal eats isn't really key. Elephants are bright and they are strict herbivores. Dolphins eat fish exclusively. Great apes tend to be 90%+ herbivores.

Instead of the focus on what we ate, it seems more keen to focus on how we developed social groups to see how humans "got the smarts". It is likely that social meals played a role, in which case eating meat, or fruitful bounties played a role in that social grouping, and in creating the environment in which intelligence was an optimal adaptation.

After all, it is the environment that leads evolution, not the incidence of mutations. That is how natural selection works: it isn't the variety that's important to the creation of adaptations, but rather the environment that "chooses" the winners. We should therefore examine what exactly was novel in the environment for humans to develop their specific intelligence. The answer seems clear to me: it wasn't what protohumans ate, but rather their interactions and budding society that were novel.

[cobalamin]

Instead of the focus on what we ate, it seems more keen to focus on how we developed social groups to see how humans "got the smarts".

Exactly.

What I noticed that is similar about dolphins, elephants and humans is that we have evolved to travel long distances except it seems that we humans have domesticated ourselves for the last 10,000 years. Like natural selection which you pointed out, the strongest tend to survive and are the most active; their activity stimulates muscle growth and increases neurotransmitters in the brain. It seems that food availability, protein intake and especially activity are the major players in increased cognitive functions. It also seems that we were meant to evolve and all of the other apes were not because of their restricted locomotion.

[xrodolfox]

Wouldn't distance travelled have very little to do with pressures towards cognitive skills?
Many many animals travel huge distances, and have similar morphologies and diets, but few end up so "smart". Goodness; think of all the sharks and birds that travel huge distances. Amongst mammals, there are species significantly less intelligent than elephants that travel huge distances.

Amongst birds, it is crows and parrots that have incredibly high intelligence. They don't often travel far, but they do have complex social systems that are not "mechanical" like with birds that live in huge units, but where the groups interact more simply.

Amongst non-human apes, it is Bonobos, which also do not travel far, which are the most intelligent. What bonobos have in common with humans and dolphins is being in estrus year round, and thus having sex all of the time, and having sex socially (dolphins do the same), and of course having complex social lives and organizations.

If anything, it would seem that social organizations that are able to adapt are the key to having an environment that would select for intelligence. Migrating doesn't seem to have even much correlation, let alone causation. The argument for migration being the selecting environment seem as plausible as diet selecting for intelligence.

OK. I'm leaving this to actual scientists, since my understanding of this topic is ultimately elementary.

I care more about what happens in present society, when humans have a choice and responsibility.

[Hiking Fox]

There's still no hello thread in "New Member Introductions" from Cobalamin, so he/she is going on my troll blocklist. Presumably that of plenty of other people, too.

[skoptic]

Just to put this topic to bed:

According to William C. Roberts, MD, Baylor Cardiovascular Institute, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas USA; and Editor-in-Chief, The American Journal of Cardiology...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?
Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores. The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

I was having a chat with s work colleague today and needed exactly this info... Fired up the forum and quoted it verbatim.. very succinct, thanks!

[ultraspontane]

This is a silly thread.

"Are we omnivores?" First of all, who do you mean by "we"? I am not an omnivore and I'm doing quite well, thank you. All of this talk about what humans were "meant" to eat is irrelevant. Its 2012 and we have the freedom to choose a diet and a way of life.

The question shouldn't be what are we "meant" to do, as if people are just mindless vessels. The questions should be; can we do it? is it the right thing to do? Is it good for me?

[aspara-gus]

cobalamin- This is actually an excellent forum. I hope you are not turned off by a few dumbass replies. As others have pointed out, your question was perfectly relevant.

[ratfan]

Seems this is a touchy question, but I'm not sure why?

I think that humans are omnivores - just look around! In the UK 95%(ish) of the population are eating omnivorous diets every day. It is possible to be fully healthy as an omnivore – and not require supplementation of the diet. As a vegan you do require fortified food/supplements, and with those you can also be fully healthy.

The issue isn’t really is it healthy/natural, for me anyway, but is it ethical? I’m happy to supplement my diet in order to remain (a relatively healthy after 20yrs) vegan, but I struggle to think of it as a complete diet for that reason. But my ethical decisions outweigh any other arguments.

Regarding human evolution, several years ago (so sorry I can’t be more specific) some researchers suggested that eating meat allowed human brains to get bigger –and therefore we as a species to became more intelligent.

But that theory was questioned by other researchers – who argued that it was cooking our foods and releasing more nutrients from them that lead to our intellectual evolution. (I know raw fooders will hate that, soz)

Some of the nutrients that vegans have to supplement are also low amongst the general population too (I’m being UK centric here), so I do wonder if at some point in our early evolution we did produce (in some manner) more of the nutrients we now have to get from supps? Regarding Vit D – if as is commonly asserted humans all come from Africa that could explain why we need to supplement it now a lot of us live in less sunny climes? But as for B12, Omega 3s I’m really not sure? But I do think it points to us being omnivores – so many other primates are too.

But that doesn't matter as we are free to choose.

[thestoatyone]

Yeah the role of omega 3s in the development of the brain has lead some to postulate that we evolved near the sea; I'm inclined to believe that for most of our evolutionary history we were scavengers (animal guts rock up high levels of w3s)

But as ratfan says, whatever, we've evolved past that point now, evolutionary wankfantasies about how life was better when we nearly starved to death every winter and a broken leg was a death sentence strike me as offensive to every human over our long history as a species that has tried to create anything better than the brutality of a state of nature like that...

[Fallen_Horse]

This is a silly thread.

"Are we omnivores?" First of all, who do you mean by "we"? I am not an omnivore and I'm doing quite well, thank you. All of this talk about what humans were "meant" to eat is irrelevant. Its 2012 and we have the freedom to choose a diet and a way of life.

The question shouldn't be what are we "meant" to do, as if people are just mindless vessels. The questions should be; can we do it? is it the right thing to do? Is it good for me?

Yep!