PDA

View Full Version : "Are humans omnivores?" (John Coleman, 2008)



Korn
May 23rd, 2010, 10:42 AM
A new version of John Coleman's article "Are humans omnivores?" can be downloaded here (http://www.ziddu.com/download/1852212/Omnivores.zip.html).

It's also available as an E-book here (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/22500196/Are-Humans-Omnivores-2nd-Ed).

PaleoVeganologist
Jun 13th, 2010, 04:58 PM
It's worth pointing out that the words "omnivore" and "herbivore" are pretty much taxonomically meaningless. There is no taxon called Omnivora or Herbivora; those words are simply colloquial descriptions of superficial behaviors. Hence, all the confusion.

Among mammalian species, there is only one taxon named according to its dietary strategies: Carnivora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora). And even one of them -- the panda -- is a herbivore!

Any mammal not a member of the Order Carnivora is both a herbivore and an omnivore; that is, a non-specialist, capable of eating anything that's not poisonous.

"Herbivore or omnivore?" isn't really a meaningful distinction.

harpy
Jun 13th, 2010, 05:08 PM
That's a very good point, PaleoVeganologist. (Hello, by the way!)

Korn
Jun 15th, 2010, 08:00 AM
Any mammal not a member of the Order Carnivora is both a herbivore and an omnivore; that is, a non-specialist, capable of eating anything that's not poisonous.

Hi there,

Talking of 'meaningless', isn't it also relatively meaningless to list anyone according to what they are 'capable' of eating? ;-)

I don't think it necessarily makes sense to classify living beings as either herbivores or omnivores, but it seems that lots of non-vegans find it important to label humans as 'omnivores'.

Since someone who is both an herbivore and an omnivore is an omnivore, labeling all mammals as either as members of the order Carnivora or omnivores doesn't make much sense either.

Humans and others may be capable of eating a lot of stuff that's not poisonous, but which doesn't make sense, which isn't really nutritious, healthy, ethical or taste good.

What actually matters IMHO is what's good for us/for the environment/animals. If it's tasty, healthy and causes no harm (or as little as possible), it's ...good. I'm a good-i-vore! :-)

There may be no taxon called Omnivora or Herbivora, but there certainly are living beings that live on a plant based diet. The reason omnivore/herbivore comes up in discussions about diet is that for a lot of people, it seems important to label humans as 'natural omnivores', which again - for some people - leads to the conclusion that they should/may eat meat, fish and dairy because it's 'natural' for humans to do that. As if we need to eat everything we 'may' eat, everything that's not poisonous, anything that 'occurs in nature', anything that's eaten by other species, or anything that humans (well, most humans) have learned to like through their childhood habits!

xrodolfox
Jun 15th, 2010, 10:25 AM
I think that that distinction that "scientifically" grouping mammals into omnivore makes sense, and that even some species in the taxon "Carnivora" eat only plants.

...but I also get the reality that when dealing with human culture, the appeal to nature argument that humans are "naturally" carnivores gets social traction. I think that having a book which argues that humans are not "designed" to be omnivores seems a worthwhile endeavor, and a useful tool in arguing for a vegan diet.

In my activism, I have found that the omnivore/carnivore/herbivore arguments really loose when simply argued that based on experience, humans can eat just about anything not poisonous and survive; and that humans can eat only plants and thrive... so eating animals is about a CHOICE, not about nature or genes or some destiny at all.

That's not to say that I won't be reading that book.

This weekend I went to a street fair with my kids. There was a booth for this nature center where there were different jaw molds of different animals, including human teeth/jaw, Gorilla teeth/jaw, etc. It was really interesting for my kids to notice that the all-but-occasional-bugs herbivore gorilla has giant canines that it doesn't use to eat meat with... while humans have tiny teeth that looked so different and flat and some people claimed we should eat meat like the fox, who had all sharp mostly simple teeth. My kids saw that in the teeth exhibit.

So while I think that the omnivore/herbivore aspect of humans shouldn't be the main argument in arguing for veganism, I certainly think it is a wonderful tool to have. Thanks for posting it Korn.

patientia
Jun 15th, 2010, 10:31 AM
Does it matter what humans naturally are? I don't think so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Since humans can be healthy herbivores, there are no excuses for eating animal products.

Korn
Jun 15th, 2010, 10:39 AM
humans can eat just about anything not poisonous and survive
I think this myth is derived from some old 'if-you're not-dea-you're fine' myth. :-) But, I'll keep it short this time, since we now have a separate section dedicated to discussing how healthy animal products actually are. (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=139) The problems with many animal products may come from animal fats, from animal proteins, from having been fried/cooked (or othe rprocessing), from *not* having been fried/cooked well enough etc., but - poisonous or not –*if something contributes to serious health problems in what is considered 'normal' amounts, those 'normal amounts' aren't healthy.



gorilla has giant canines that it doesn't use to eat meat with...
Sure. Many of the most lethal animals on the Earth are herbivores. And - and if brain size counts - elephants, for the record, are deadly when in danger but still wouldn't dream of eating a human even if they had killed one. So much for eating animal products because we are 'naturally capable of' etc....

Korn
Jun 15th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Does it matter what humans naturally are?

Natural/nature isn't always good (and sometimes poisonous), but unnatural often means problems, unless something is cultivated 'in accordance with nature'.

In some cases it definitely matters what we are *not*. It would take thousands of years of evolution to keep doing/eating something that the human body isn't 'naturally' OK with consuming - without getting into trouble.

More than half of the world's population have problems with digesting milk (from other species), and this may - together with the fact that we don't need milk from other species - give a hint that maybe it's time for the human race to skip the idea of drinking mother's milk (from other species) throughout our lives. Which of course is valid even if milk isn't usually labelled as poison (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYpafipJyDE)ous, and even if we 'are capable of' drinking it and get some nutrients from the milk.

patientia
Jun 15th, 2010, 11:29 AM
What does natural mean anyway? Is it what humans historically have eaten (termites?) or what science shows is best for human health? We have many cultivars of plants that our ancestors haven't had. They can be considered unnatural. But they are tastier, have more nutrients, or have other desirable characteristics. And I don't mean GMO, just plain hybrids.

Milk is already artificially improved. Lactase is added to help digest lactose. Vitamin D and calcium are added, because milk causes negative calcium balance. Fitosterols are added because milk contains cholesterol (and cholesterol raising saturated fats), and fitosterols help reduce it. Pasteurization is not natural, but it prevents food poisoning. Skimming is not natural. I don't think anybody can argue that natural cow milk is good for humans when it needs so much enhancing.

One day artificial meat will be commercially produced. I guess saturated fats are going to be reduced, cholesterol removed, essential fatty acids added, fiber added, protein reduced (or at least 2 aminoacids that shorten lifespan: methionine and leucine) etc. That artificial meat will be far better for human health than natural meat.

There are some nutrients in meat that are good, like B12, but it's better to get synthetic B12, than B12 that comes with all those other harmful (at least in quantities present in meat) nutrients.

Research shows that (balanced, western) vegan diet is good for humans, and often that it is better than a non-vegan diet. Even if it's proven one day that humans are naturally omnivores (whatever that may mean) I'll stay a vegan. Even if it's shown one day that vegans have shorter lifespan/healthspan than those who eat a bit of animal products (maybe 100g a month), I'll stay a vegan (because it's better for other sentient beings).

Korn
Jun 15th, 2010, 11:48 AM
There are some nutrients in meat that are good, like B12, but it's better to get synthetic B12, than B12 that comes with all those other harmful (at least in quantities present in meat) nutrients.
There aren't only two choices (synthetic B12 or B12 from animal products), but we have a dedicated forum (or two) about B12 topics already...

Many studies show that lots of health problems are associated with consumption of animal products (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=139), and one of the few things that actually separates animal products from plant food are the higher B12 levels.

Future will show how large percentage of the meat (etc) related diseases that potentially are associated with high B12 levels, and how large percentage that is associated with cholesterol, animal fats and so on.

People have all kinds of definitions of 'natural', and we have some threads about the good old vegan/omni/natural topic in this (Human Evolution) subforum already...

patientia
Jun 15th, 2010, 12:16 PM
Sure, every nutrient can be problematic in too large quantities. Currently upper limit for B12 is not established, but I would recommend taking at least the RDA/DRI.

PaleoVeganologist
Jun 15th, 2010, 08:33 PM
Wow. I've missed quite a bit.

I pointed out the lack of omnivorous/herbivores taxa to emphasize, of course, that meat-eating is a choice, not an obligation. I use the no-taxa point in the omni vs. herbi debate not to show that most mammals are omnivores, but to show that the distinction is an irrelevant colloquialism.

Most people who make the omni-by-nature argument assume that science backs them up. Politely point out that it doesn't, and... well, let's just say I've seen a variety of reactions, all of them amusing.

I'm not one who much believes in human "nature" or "design." Evolution just doesn't work that.

It's always a choice.

Festered
Jun 16th, 2010, 10:07 PM
It isn't letting me view it for some reason.
Whether it 'matters' or not, it's a subject that comes up often and I am fine with knowing more about.

erfoud
Jun 20th, 2010, 06:50 PM
Humans are probably violent by nature, and we may tend by nature to organize male-dominated communities but.... one thing is nature and another one is culture, and mankind is a unique animal that can break with entrenched traits of our nature and keep them at bay. If we are violent by nature, we try to correct this and establish moral codes and sets of laws and regulations aimed at curtailing what we deem negative. Humankind has been having a prolonged struggle to amend the unfair social situation that women have undregone in most of our societies. it remains to be seen whether male dominance is a trait of our species -as it is within gorillas and chimps- but it doesný seem absurd to think so. Likewise, racism may be considered as part of our nature (it makes sense to distrust and reject people who donīt look like us and who have a different pattern of behaviour), but this is something fortunately frowned upon in our current set of values.
We are probably designed (mmm, I donīt like this term as it implies a designer...) to be omnivores, but thanks to the growing knowledge of nutrition,to the spectacular strides in technology,to the broadening of the concept of empathy and to the evolution of our ethics, we know we can live a decent life without harming other animals
In short, the gist of the problem is not what we are but what we can be. Non humans animals canīt alter their behaviour. We can

PaleoVeganologist
Jun 20th, 2010, 11:38 PM
We are probably designed (mmm, I donīt like this term as it implies a designer...) to be omnivores...The thing almost everyone fails to get about evolution and this whole question of what we're "designed" for, is that just because an organism possesses a trait, that doesn't mean the trait was selected for. The majority of traits possessed by a particular organism played no role at all in their speciation, and were simply inherited down a long chain of ancestry. To put it bluntly, most organisms find new uses for old things, rather than developing new things. When a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist wants to know what defines a species, they look for the things unique to it, not the things it has in common with its ancestors.

Humans' unique characters include bipedalism, larger brains and speech. The things that make us distinctly human have little to do with our digestive morphology, dentition, or anything else that most anti-vegans making an appeal to nature want to highlight. We have the guts and teeth we have because our ancestors had them, and their ancestors before them, and so on, all the way back to the adapiforms. They are simply variations on a body plan laid down before our ancestors were even primates. They're just hand-me-downs. They do not define us a species, and I think we as vegans ought to be clear on this, because the "design" debate is a trap. Almost all mammals are "omnivorous," including most of the Carnivorans. It's a meaningless argument.
In short, the gist of the problem is not what we are but what we can be. Non humans animals canīt alter their behaviour. We canI agree with this sentiment, but the factual statement isn't true. Nonhuman animals can indeed alter their behavior. Perhaps the best example of this is the "fear of man" effect, an "instinct" lacking in animals never exposed to humans.

Many behaviors of nonhuman animals are learned from their parents; beavers raised in captivity don't instinctively know how to build dams; kittens raised without being taught to hunt mice will let mice cuddle with them.

Arguing that humans alone possess free will is a remnant of the old "dominion" idea.

xrodolfox
Jun 21st, 2010, 01:58 AM
well said.

harpy
Jun 21st, 2010, 09:12 AM
Whether it 'matters' or not, it's a subject that comes up often and I am fine with knowing more about.

Yes, it's good to know more about it, but I don't think we are under any obligation to try and give a yes/no answer to a question like "are humans omnivores?" or "isn't it natural to eat meat?" - we can explain why the question is meaningless/irrelevant instead.

Johnstuff
Jun 21st, 2010, 01:02 PM
The thing almost everyone fails to get about evolution and this whole question of what we're "designed" for, is that just because an organism possesses a trait, that doesn't mean the trait was selected for. The majority of traits possessed by a particular organism played no role at all in their speciation, and were simply inherited down a long chain of ancestry. To put it bluntly, most organisms find new uses for old things, rather than developing new things. When a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist wants to know what defines a species, they look for the things unique to it, not the things it has in common with its ancestors.

Humans' unique characters include bipedalism, larger brains and speech. The things that make us distinctly human have little to do with our digestive morphology, dentition, or anything else that most anti-vegans making an appeal to nature want to highlight. We have the guts and teeth we have because our ancestors had them, and their ancestors before them, and so on, all the way back to the adapiforms. They are simply variations on a body plan laid down before our ancestors were even primates. They're just hand-me-downs. They do not define us a species, and I think we as vegans ought to be clear on this, because the "design" debate is a trap. Almost all mammals are "omnivorous," including most of the Carnivorans. It's a meaningless argument.I agree with this sentiment, but the factual statement isn't true. Nonhuman animals can indeed alter their behavior. Perhaps the best example of this is the "fear of man" effect, an "instinct" lacking in animals never exposed to humans.

Many behaviors of nonhuman animals are learned from their parents; beavers raised in captivity don't instinctively know how to build dams; kittens raised without being taught to hunt mice will let mice cuddle with them.

Arguing that humans alone possess free will is a remnant of the old "dominion" idea.

I pretty much agree but I don't think 'larger brains and speech' are unique to humans either. Dolphins have brains similar in size to humans and also have complex speech.

PaleoVeganologist
Jun 23rd, 2010, 04:34 AM
I pretty much agree but I don't think 'larger brains and speech' are unique to humans either. Dolphins have brains similar in size to humans and also have complex speech.I should clarify.

A species is defined by what makes it unique among its clade, or ancestral line.

Among primates, humans are unique in their bipedalism, brain size, and power of speech (among other things).

This isn't meant as a slight to dolphins, who aren't part of the same clade (unless we're counting all mammals).