A rational critique of: Humans are Omnivores

[leedsveg]

Hi Mahk
If only Donald Watson were still alive, he could explain exactly what he meant with his quoted words and you (if you still deemed it appropriate) could 'rubbish' him for making a scientific claim. I could imagine him being very bemused that you had used his (DW's) lack of 'higher education', relative youth at leaving school and lack of scientific expertise, to try to 'score a point' over a fellow vegan (Korn) in a discussion.

Of course for many vegans, Donald Watson is held in great affection and esteem, so that when another vegan ie you Mahk, seem to be making cheap shots against him on VF, it all seems a bit sad and unnecessary. The kind of thing that I'd more expect from an omni, than a vegan.

Still what's done is done and since you don't appear to have a shred of regret in using Donald Watson in what I consider a shameless way, there's probably no more to be said.

leedsveg

[Mahk]

From my perspective (and I would assume the Vegan Society as well), I am furthering veganism by speaking the truth even if "inconvenient"; it is all that matters. Advancing lies ala "animal testing of drugs and medicines doesn't work at all" [despite the facts that the world spends over 12,000,000,000 dollars on it annually] or as in this current thread "humans are not genetically designed to be capable of eating animal matter; we are rather herbivores" [despite the fact that 6 billion people do it daily and usually for their entire lives, and have for thousands or even millions of years] makes us look like blithering idiots to any fence sitting omni with even a modicum of science education. Their likelihood to follow us plummets when their perception of us is that of kooks.

Here's an analogy. If we were battling the legality of slavery and one of "us" was proclaiming, "Keeping slaves for labor should be stopped because it is a poor economic model and is not financially profitable to the businesses that do it" I'd be contesting their point as well for the same reason. I hope the expression "it puts eggs on our faces" is a common English euphemism shared in all our counties. [If not, here.]

Killing animals is, as harpy put it, "unnecessary and cruel"; those are the reasons we shouldn't do it (or keep slaves). Inventing specious other reasons which contradicts science and both recorded and pre-recorded history damages our clout, ruins our reputation, and sets veganism back several decades. I'm glad the Vegan Society concurs.

[Mahk]

I could imagine him being very bemused that you had used his (DW's) lack of 'higher education', relative youth at leaving school and lack of scientific expertise, to try to 'score a point' over a fellow vegan (Korn) in a discussion.

I personally don't look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat. If you or others do, that's fine.

My point that he left school at 14 wasn't meant as a put down, a "cheap shot", or an insult as you suggest, but rather an elaboration that he has no formal training in anatomy, physiology, anthropology, archeology, or primatology. He is a layperson, as am I. That's all I meant. You are reading into things to suggest otherwise. These fields of science are what I look to to answer this question, personally. Everyone is of course free to use whatever sources they prefer.

Still what's done is done and since you don't appear to have a shred of regret in using Donald Watson in what I consider a shameless way,

I already apologized for my misinterpretation that he "dropped out of school" and clearly explained the source of my confusion. I stand by all my other comments about him, being a layperson as am I, though, and also don't think he presented himself as "an authoritative expert" for that matter. Part of what I admire about him was that he was humble.

[cobweb]

Well it sounded very much as though you were speaking ill of a dead person in order to score a point over a fellow vegan, Mahk, and it also seemed quite a 'personal' interruption to the debate, bringing someone's signature into the equation .

I think this argument is almost the same as arguing about the existence of God. Some humans believe in God, some humans choose to eat animal matter, some don't believe in God, some eat a plant based diet very successfully. I live in an historically Christian country but would be annoyed if I heard someone labelling all British people as Christians .

I was given meat and eggs to eat as a child, and I survived, and as I said before, I also used to eat stones and tissue paper. I'm sure that my body wasn't designed to eat stones or tissue paper but it coped with my ingestion of them. I now eat a wholly plant based diet. Humans have many choices and are able to withstand a lot that isn't 'natural' or even 'normal'.

I find it strange, Mahk, that you care quite so much about vegans being seen as 'kooky' (I also find that a little insulting). In fact you seem to care more about the perceptions of non-vegans than you care for the feelings of other vegans. Donald Watson may have been 'only a woodwork teacher' but he was obviously a very intelligent, brave, and compassionate gentleman, from whom we could all learn a lot.

[Mahk]

I think this argument is almost the same as arguing about the existence of God.

Maybe we should have a thread about "Whether humans are vertebrates?" or "Whether humans are warm blooded?" We all have our own opinions right?

I live in an historically Christian country but would be annoyed if I heard someone labelling all British people as Christians

Christianity is a belief system. Some perscribe to it, some don't. Being warm blooded, having a vertebrae, and being able to digest animal matter or plants is a physical state of being which is measurable by science, not philosophers or laypeople like myself or Donald Watson.

I find it strange, Mahk, that you care quite so much about vegans being seen as 'kooky'

You are lucky it doesn't bother you. It is a constant source of embarrassment to me similar to the silly, trivializing antics of PeTA (although technically they've never claimed to be a vegan organization, per se, although many see them as such.)

In fact you seem to care more about the perceptions of non-vegans than you care for the feelings of other vegans.

And which of those two groups would I be trying to persuade to stop killing animals?
---

Look, I made a mistake which I owned up to about what "leaving school at age 14" meant in 1925 England. How many times do I have to say I'm sorry? How many times do I have to say it wasn't a put down but rather an explanation that he was a layperson, like me? Can we move along please?

[cobweb]

Can we move along please?

yes i would hate to labour the point

[cobweb]

Maybe we should have a thread about "Whether humans are vertebrates?" or "Whether humans are warm blooded?" We all have our own opinions right?

But that would be a bit silly, i can feel my vertebrae and i know that i am warm blooded, they are not choices.
I also know that i'm herivorous and it's my opinion that humans were designed to be so. I can't prove it though.

I have never met a single person who is genuinely interested in veganism that would be bothered about whether or not humans are 'naturally omnivorous' - and personally i find meat eaters kind of 'kooky' myself.

[Mahk]

But that would be a bit silly, i can feel my vertebrae and i know that i am warm blooded, they are not choices.
I also know that i'm herivorous and it's my opinion that humans were designed to be so. I can't prove it though..

Do you think all animals that science labels as omnivores are in truth herbivores or is this unique to their classification of humans only?

Also, I think you may want to re-word your post. If you think humans have a "choice" in eating animal products or not you've just defined them as being omnivores.

[cobweb]

Do you think all animals that science labels as omnivores are in truth herbivores or is this unique to their classification of humans only?

I think you may want to re-word your post. If you think humans have a "choice" in eating animal products or not you've just defined them as being omnivores.

nah, it's ok, thanks, i don't want to re-word my post.
I have the personal opinion which i cannot scientifically prove, that humans started out as herbivores and are designed to be that way, but can choose to eat animal matter if that's what they want to do. So they can choose to be omnivores, yes.

The animal world is so vast that i don't have firm opinions on the diet regimes of non-humans, on the whole, especially as they don't usually have much choice in the matter.

[sandra]

I personally don't look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat. If you do, that's fine.

My point that he left school at 14 wasn't meant as a put down, a "cheap shot", or an insult as you suggest, but rather an elaboration that he has no formal training in anatomy, physiology, anthropology, archeology, or primatology. He is a layperson, as am I. That's all I meant. You are reading into things to suggest otherwise. These fields of science are what I look to to answer this question, personally. You are of course free to use whatever sources you prefer.

I personally don't look to scientists as an authoritative source on anything. Are these the same people who one year will state something as 'fact' and then change their minds the next year?
They can't even forecast accurately what the weather will be for the week ahead never mind how the world began millions of years ago!

I am vegan because it is wrong and cruel to exploit other living beings and to be honest I don't really care whether humans are meant to be omnivores, herbivores or any other sort of vore!

p.s. I hope my signature isn't giving out the wrong impression of me..................I'm not as frivolous as you might think!

[cobweb]

By the way i probably shouldn't even be arguing on this thread because i'm just as set in my opinion as you are in yours, Mahk.

I'm not open to changing my mind on this one - BUT - if it were ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that humans were 'designed' or evolved to be omnivorous, it would make very little difference to my life or my thoughts about veganism.

That said, there seems to be little point in my continuing with this thread, but i was deeply offended by the Donald Watson put-down . Rather than worry about what non-vegans may or may not think of vegans, i would rather recognise the fact that today's vegan, and many millions of animals, owe a debt of thanks to Donald Watson.

[leedsveg]

I personally don't look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat. If you do, that's fine.

Hi Mahk I've nowhere remotely indicated that I 'look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat'. [So I ask myself if this is the usual Mahk debating tactic of slyly linking a person to a position they probably don't hold, then when challenged, coming over all innocent saying (with a wink) 'I never said/meant that!'] I'm not absolutely certain what Donald Watson meant with his quoted words, but since you're the one who felt it necessary to bring the quote into the thread domain, I assume you do. As I'm not 100% sure what he meant, I cannot say with certainty that he did not have the authority to say what he did! leedsveg

[Mahk]

I personally don't look to scientists as an authoritative source on anything. Are these the same people who one year will state something as 'fact' and then change their minds the next year?

No, you must be thinking of some other group (or were lied to). The beauty of true science is it is never 100% certain of anything and is constantly re-evaluating things. We refer to Einsteins theory of relativity, not "fact", despite the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

Unlike belief systems which are stagnant and unchanging, scientists will gladly change their views based on whatever the preponderance of data is at the time, but a true scientist never says, "And this can never by proven false at a later time".

As an example we ("the world of science", that is, I'm not personally one of them) thought that other than slight stomach upset for some, aspirin was a perfectly safe drug to administer to just about anyone, but we now know it causes Reye's Syndrome in certain scenarios. "We" then have to evaluate if it should be pulled from the market or re-labeled with cautions. The decision was to relabel it.

[Mahk]

i was deeply offended by the Donald Watson put-down . .

Liar! I didn't put him down.

[leedsveg]

Liar! I didn't put him down.

Mahk When you're in a hole, the best thing you can do is stop digging! lv

[Mahk]

Hi Mahk I've nowhere remotely indicated that I 'look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat'.

I was speaking more to Korn's comments from another thread which I am no longer able to find and when I asked Korn for help he didn't respond:

^ I'm incapable of responding because I can't find the post where Korn explained what he thought Watson really meant in this quote. Part of it was that Watson meant "an animal that sometimes eats meat", not a true or obligate carnivore which only eats meat, if I recall correctly.

Korn?

[also I still owe him a response to his last post]

Sorry if it seemed I was addressing you specifically; it was more "my opponents" that I was generically addressing.

As I'm not 100% sure what he meant, I cannot say with certainty that he did not have the authority to say what he did!

I'm not sure what he meant either but Korn seemed confident, IIRC.

[Mahk]

Mahk When you're in a hole, the best thing you can do is stop digging! lv

Please quote my "put down" verbatim after my my three times admitted mistake that "leaving school" at 14 isn't "dropping out"?


I CHALLENGE YOU! You are imagining things.

[leedsveg]

I'm not sure what he meant either but Korn seemed confident, IIRC.

Hi Mahk This has to be one of your more comical postings, perhaps the most comical. You and Korn may have exchanged views earlier in the thread but more recently you have been exchanging views with me, leedsveg. Since we, that is you and I, are agreed that we, that is you and I cannot be sure what Donald Watson meant in his quoted words, then can we, that is you and I agree that we, that is you and I cannot consider those words to be an example of someone talking about a scientific matter, but lacking the scientific credibility to be able to do so, with authority? Please just say yes so that I can go to bed. leedsveg

[leedsveg]

I CHALLENGE YOU! You are imagining things.

OK mate, I'll get my manservant to lay out my duelling pistols and I'll see you at dawn, or could we make it half past dawn, 'cos I'm a bit tired? [I'm beginning to think that I'm having a conversation with the right side of my brain.] leedsveg

[cobweb]

I've just used the 'ignore' facility for the first time, i can't keep getting involved in pointless word games, it's not good for me .
Enjoy the 'debate' on this thread, i'm very happy with my own thoughts on the matter and have nothing to prove to anyone .
Humans are humans are humans are humans..........

[Mahk]

Hi Mahk This has to be one of your more comical postings, perhaps the most comical. You and Korn may have exchanged views earlier in the thread...

Stop, pause, hold right there. It wasn't this thread I'm referring to where Korn wrote what he seemed confident Watson really meant in the quote: "I've always accepted that Man's greatest mistake is trying to turn himself into a carnivore, contrary to natural law."

It's quite possible you personally haven't even been in that thread I speak of, for all I know, so you wouldn't be privy to the gist of his view. We have so many con-current threads that are devoted to the topic of "Science's delusion that humans are biologically able to digest and extract the nutrients from animal matter", or however you'd want to put it, and the search function on this forum seems incapable of Boolean logic's use of the concept of "AND", so it's impossible for me to find it. Also, to repeat,

Sorry if it seemed I was addressing you specifically;

---

Since we, that is you and I, are agreed that we, that is you and I cannot be sure what Donald Watson meant in his quoted words, then can we, that is you and I agree that we, that is you and I cannot consider those words to be an example of someone talking about a scientific matter, but lacking the scientific credibility to be able to do so, with authority?

Here is my reduction of your question, if I understood it correctly. [Yes, I understand you are speaking about just you and I and not Korn, or anyone else]:

Since we agree we both aren't sure we understand what Watson actually meant in his quote, can we then agree we can't consider his words an example of a person addressing a scientific matter, yet they themselves aren't an authority in that field?

My answer is "no". We can't be confident of anything since the very quote itself is ambiguous.

"Carnivore", DW? Really? I've never heard of anyone that thinks humans are now, ever have been, or are attempting to turn into pure carnivores that don't eat vegetable matter. That's a new one on me.

Whether a given species of primate is warm blooded, say, or is biologically capable of ingesting animal matter and absorbing the nutrients from it, is very much a matter for science, not opinion. Whether or not we ought to do it is a completely different question that has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific classification of all animals into either herbivore, omnivore or carnivore. If we have an option not to eat animals "should we?", however, is a question for philosophers, religion, ethics, and pro-animal people like us vegans. My answer personally is "no we shouldn't", but I'm not going to lie and say, "We are incapable of digesting animal matter because we are herbivores, not omnivores". I'm thankful the Vegan Society says the same. It shames me however when other vegans say differently. It makes us look like idiots, considering 98% of the world population proves that humans are fully capable of digesting animal matter, if they choose, but they obviously don't have to as a vegan diet is perfectly healthy if not even more healthy.

[Mahk]

OK mate, I'll get my manservant to lay out my duelling pistols and I'll see you at dawn, or could we make it half past dawn, 'cos I'm a bit tired? [I'm beginning to think that I'm having a conversation with the right side of my brain.] leedsveg

I look forward to your attempt to directly quote me as "putting down" Watson in a post that was after my repeated, admitted concession that leaving school at age 14 wasn't "dropping out", as I had incorrectly originally had thought.

[Mahk]

I've just used the 'ignore' facility for the first time, i can't keep getting involved in pointless word games, it's not good for me .
.

Watch everyone. It won't last. She'll be back [that is to say remove me from her ignore list]. Just watch...

edit to add: In all fairness though I will attempt to not address any of her previous or future comments in this thread since she will be "unaware" of them. [Assuming she doesn't make any further antagonistic, slanderous, and incendiary accusations against me, that is.] It is not fair to debate a party that is unrepresented by themselves, or others, and has no defense in place. At least not in my book.

[sandra]

Unlike belief systems which are stagnant and unchanging, scientists will gladly change their views based on whatever the preponderance of data is at the time, but a true scientist never says, "And this can never by proven false at a later time".

Exactly, it can't be relied on.............just as I said.

[leedsveg]

Stop, pause, hold right there. It wasn't this thread I'm referring to where Korn wrote what he seemed confident Watson really meant in the quote: "I've always accepted that Man's greatest mistake is trying to turn himself into a carnivore, contrary to natural law."

It's quite possible you personally haven't even been in that thread I speak of, for all I know, so you wouldn't be privy to the gist of his view. We have so many con-current threads that are devoted to the topic of "Science's delusion that humans are biologically able to digest and extract the nutrients from animal matter", or however you'd want to put it, and the search function on this forum seems incapable of Boolean logic's use of the concept of "AND", so it's impossible for me to find it. Also, to repeat,
---
Here is my reduction of your question, if I understood it correctly. [Yes, I understand you are speaking about just you and I and not Korn, or anyone else]:

Since we agree we both aren't sure we understand what Watson actually meant in his quote, can we then agree we can't consider his words an example of a person addressing a scientific matter, yet they themselves aren't an authority in that field?

My answer is "no". We can't be confident of anything since the very quote itself is ambiguous.

"Carnivore", DW? Really? I've never heard of anyone that thinks humans are now, ever have been, or are attempting to turn into pure carnivores that don't eat vegetable matter. That's a new one on me.

Mahk

Since I agree that the Donald Watson quote is ambiguous and you and I cannot discuss anything about it with confidence, I think I'd be a bit of an idiot to try to use the quote to discuss Donald Watson and carnivorism. Good luck to whoever would want to carry on that particular discussion with you.

You can find plenty of opinions on the net suggesting we (humankind) can live as carnivores (-it's not my opinion by the way. lv). Just google them.

For what it's worth, I can entirely understand, why cobweb was "deeply offended by the Donald Watson put-down" and why she chose the words she did. Now if the joint opinion of cobweb and myself makes us both liars in your estimation, then I guess that's something we'll just have to live with.

Good wishes

lv

---------------------------------------------------------

Can I just say to VF members who want to have a genuine discussion regarding vegans and omnivorism that I'm sorry that I diverted the thread. It did seem important to me though that the words of Donald Watson were not used in a mischievous or petty way, since obviously, the founder of the Vegan Society (UK) is no longer with us to clarify exactly what he meant or defend himself. As Mahk has said of Donald Watson "Part of what I admire about him was that he was humble". The way I see it, humility was one of the many facets of DW's veganism, it wasn't just about not eating animals, or being nice to them. Perhaps there's still a lot we can all learn from him.

I'm now outta here...

lv

[emzy1985]

Guys seriously WTF?

I think people need to stop worrying about what other people think, vegan or non-vegan and get on with their lives. I've converted far more people than anyone I know, all just by being myself.

[pat sommer]

Thank you Mahk for an enlightening thread.
I can use some of your references when discussing scientific topics with my daughter.

Not easy here having such a discussion with our wide range of cultures: what is a harmless remark in one can be quite provocative in another. For ex. to use the word rude in Germany could lead to the termination of a friendship while it is freely expressed in the UK without the same force. You say tomahto I say tomayto.

[Mahk]

^Thanks Pat.
---

I found the thread where Korn discusses Watson's quote and as I suspected earlier, Leedsveg has made no comments in that thread (as of yet) so he very well may have never read it, hence some of my comments in this thread to the general audience may have seemed odd or out of place from his perspective:

Hi Mahk I've nowhere remotely indicated that I 'look to woodwork teachers to be the authoritative source as to what are humans genetically designed to eat'. [So I ask myself if this is the usual Mahk debating tactic of slyly linking a person to a position they probably don't hold, then when challenged, coming over all innocent saying (with a wink) 'I never said/meant that!']

The thread is here. Watson made the comment in the year 2002. Further discussion on his quote, if anyone cares, should probably be carried over to that thread.
---

You can find plenty of opinions on the net suggesting we (humankind) can live as carnivores (-it's not my opinion by the way. lv). Just google them.

If there are such people they have a very weak understanding of human nutrition. We humans have a rare genetic defect called hypoascorbemia. It is rare in mammals regardless if they are herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore. Basically it means that unlike cats, dogs, horses, cows, pigs etc [which can produce vitamin C on their own], we are unable to survive without a source of vitamin C in our diet or we get scurvy and die. Vitamin C is extremely rare in typical western meats and is only found in some rare internal organ meat categories such as seal brain and heart. They also would have to be consumed raw because cooking kills off the vitamin C. The Inuit survive doing just that but they also cheat and consume kelp, berries during some months, and caribou stomach contents, so they can't really be deemed "true carnivores".

As omnivores we do have an option to not eat meat, eggs, fish, and dairy, however choosing to live on only those meat categories would cause scurvy and eventually death. None of them have any appreciable level of vitamin C.
---

For what it's worth, I can entirely understand, why cobweb was "deeply offended by the Donald Watson put-down"

I forgot to link to the source where I got the info that Watson "left school at 14 to pursue a career in woodwork/[teaching]". It is from The Times and notice they use the exact same terminology, "He left school at 14", in the fourth paragraph. It was not a "put down" by either of us but rather an observation and as I explained earlier the pertinence of me bringing it up was to show that he was a layperson, like myself, and not a scientist.

[VeganLu]

What does it matter how educated Donald Watson was? You do not have to be intelligent to decide not to eat meat or use meat by-products. Compassion comes from the heart, not from the head. By the way Mahk, I believe that Donald Watson is still alive. I believe I read it on this forum. It might have been vegsleed who wrote it, but don't quote me on that.

About humans being naturally carnivorus or herbivous, it does not matter. Humans have a choice, where animals do not. As far as experimenting on animals and all the money spent doing it, where do you think that money comes from? Unsuspecting meat-eaters that do not know what really goes on. The same experiments are done over and over again. It is all about making money. These experimenters do not want to find a cure for cancer or heart disease or many, many other diseases. They keep getting grants and what do they do with that money, do the same experiments over and over again. Has it not dawned on you why we have not found a cure for any of the diseases? The pharmaceutical industry would also not want these cures to be found. And the government as well. I am getting so angry as I am writing this so I have to stop. My anger is at the aforementioned industries, not you Mahk. I just wanted to respond to some of your writings.

[pat sommer]

I guess we have ample proof that forum members lead with their hearts -not a bad thing overall. The thread, however, is rational critique.

Mahk has shown great restraint to those that do not weigh evidence very heavily.

Can we all hug now and go on to other topics, hmm?

[cobweb]

Mahk has shown great restraint to those that do not weigh evidence very heavily

good one

[VeganLu]

Charles Darwin was a vegetarian. Does this little tidbit belong in this thread?

[Prawnil]

Using terms generally for loosely classifying feeding behaviour to imply anything about physiology is bound to lead to a bit of trouble. In the more innovative, selective, 'higher' species the categories make less and less sense. Another confusing thing is defining herbivores as being necessarily harmed by flesh intake. That isn't a standard definition at all. The classes aren't absolute or even mutually exclusive - describing whole species or individual animals as "strongly herbivorous", "markedly herbivorous", "primarily herbivorous" etc. is done a lot. It's behavioural. To separate species based on their digestive physiology would be far more complicated.

Hypoascorbemia would be the condition of ascorbate deficiency, as in scurvy itself. I don't think it's fair to call the need for dietary vitamin C a defect. It's a trait of all monkeys and apes, plus guinea pigs and some bats, oddly (all of which are mainly herbivorous). Our physiology is almost the same as the great apes', so a likely dietary ancestry with very little animal matter that would probably be insect most often.

The length ratios of the components of the gut are quite different between homo sapiens and chimp, gorilla & orangutan, though! Humans have a lower proportion of colon-to-small intestine; about 25%:50%, whereas in the other great apes it's roughly opposite to that [Milton '99. Nutritional characterists of wild primate foods: do the diets of our closest living relatives have lessons for us? Nutrition 15; Lucas etc 2006. A brief review of the recent evolution of the human mouth... Physiology & Behvaiour 89]. The human tract is also slightly but significantly shorter. A suggestion is that as the human diet became, in a sense, more efficient with the onset of cooking and flesh eating (at the serious expense of micronutrient deficiency & fat intake in the form it's morphed into in the industrialised world), the extra long colon (good for extended absorption from bulky less digestible plant matter) became less of a beneficially selective trait. And so has shortened slightly. Our closest relatives barely eat any animal matter, some none. But offered meat, they will eat it, even showing a preference for cooked over raw! [Wobber, Hare, Wrangham 2008. Great apes prefer cooked food. Journal of Human Evolution 55]
Thriving on a nearly 100% plant diet when left to their own devices, though, they're still often described as herbivores. In that sense I would consider humans essentially herbivorous, but with some drift in our biology as a result of innovations in the last few million years. It doesn't seem likely that humans would cope particularly well precisely emulating great ape diets generally. The Milton article, and I've seen it a few times elsewhere, tends to calculate that the sheer volume of leaves + fruit alone would not be feasible - but now we have the root vegetable etc; all those foods we can cope with by the power of cooking and directed cultivation.

I also think it's correct to consider humans omnivores because of our behaviour - if you take the simple definition of omnivore as having a system capable of handling flesh and plant (though on that definition, which is it's bad weakness, I would expect that huge numbers of 'obvious' herbivores would fit the class).
I just don't believe it is possible to successfully compress the issue into what humans are 'meant' to eat.

I won't call current humans 'herbivores' because that term is usually (when used about species, not single individuals) about animals that (almost) exclusively live on plant matter. Also, I wouldn't tell a meat eating individual that he actually is a herbivore, because some of these terms often are used (about humans) in their most simple ways - and without any reference to natural or not, but about what these individuals actually eat regularly. To me, it actually is as simple as that.

I think that tidily covers it.

P.S. Lu, Donald Watson did die, but not very long ago.
Since the enormous majority of drugs are for use after diagnosis, rather than preventitive, to make a major step in a better drug or master 'cure' would be the absolute best thing a research scientist/team/company could hope for. Their career/business would just explode, aside from the human impact they could cause. The business practices of Pharma might seem monstrous, but sadly (because it would be simpler if they were), individual researchers are not conniving monsters. Well, not that I can speak for them all.

[Prawnil]

AbstractThe widespread prevalence of diet-related health problems, particularly in highly industrialized nations, suggests that many humans are not eating in a manner compatible with their biology. Anthropoids, including all great apes, take most of their diet from plants, and there is general consensus that humans come from a strongly herbivorous ancestry. Though gut proportions differ, overall gut anatomy and the pattern of digestive kinetics of extant apes and humans are very similar. Analysis of tropical forest leaves and fruits routinely consumed by wild primates shows that many of these foods are good sources of hexoses, cellulose, hemicellulose, pectic substances, vitamin C, minerals, essential fatty acids, and protein. In general, relative to body weight, the average wild monkey or ape appears to take in far higher levels of many essential nutrients each day than the average American and such nutrients (as well as other substances) are being consumed together in their natural chemical matrix. The recommendation that Americans consume more fresh fruits and vegetables in greater variety appears well supported by data on the diets of free-ranging monkeys and apes. Such data also suggest that greater attention to features of the diet and digestive physiology of non-human primates could direct attention to important areas for future research on features of human diet and health.

AbstractThe cooking hypothesis proposes that a diet of cooked food was responsible for diverse morphological and behavioral changes in human evolution. However, it does not predict whether a preference for cooked food evolved before or after the control of fire. This question is important because the greater the preference shown by a raw-food-eating hominid for the properties present in cooked food, the more easily cooking should have been adopted following the control of fire. Here we use great apes to model food preferences by Paleolithic hominids. We conducted preference tests with various plant and animal foods to determine whether great apes prefer food items raw or cooked. We found that several populations of captive apes tended to prefer their food cooked, though with important exceptions. These results suggest that Paleolithic hominids would likewise have spontaneously preferred cooked food to raw, exapting a pre-existing preference for high-quality, easily chewed foods onto these cooked items. The results, therefore, challenge the hypothesis that the control of fire preceded cooking by a significant period.

[VeganLu]

Hi Prawnil:

I stand to be corrected. I see that Donald Watson died in 2005. I guess if I had done my research before making such a statement, I would have known. The info I got from 2 people must have been written before 2005.

[RainInStarlight]

^ seems to me you're completely convinced of that so why keep arguing.......i mean debating it?.

funnily enough when i chose the path of veganism, i didn't give one single thought as to whether we are 'naturally omnivorous' or otherwise, and i wonder if many people seriously contempleting veganism do?.

I thought about if we were natural omnivores when I started vegetarianism/veganism (it wasn't my main reason for going ve*n, but it was one of the considerations that went through my mind).

It's my personal opinion that we are natural omnivores that lean slightly on the side of being more herbivorous than carnivorous. That's what all the facts/my perceptions say to me.

Or, as we say in the south: That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!

[Korn]

Even more perplexing for you is that the Vegan Society completely agrees with me for the exact same reason: science.

Except that one person has written something about that, once, one their site, I haven't seen any official statement from them about that. Since nobody from The Vegan Society has responded to my question in another thread if this is an official viewpoint their members have, that statement could be seen only as the same kind of slip they had a while ago where they defined 'vegan' based on what people ate only.

But at least I know now that you think humans are 'natural cannibals' as well as 'natural omnivores'.

I prefer to say humans are genetically omnivores, that is to say unlike herbivores our bodies are capable of digesting meat and other animal matter like eggs and milk (for some even into adulthood) and assimilating the nutrients into our bloodstream, as about 98 to 99% of the world's population chooses to.

So - is this the definition of natural omnivore now? Capable of digesting nutrients from something (that 'something' could be mud, insects, placenta, human meat etc.) normally isn'y used as a criterion for defining us as 'natural mud (etc) eaters. But you know that already.

I've told you before. I don't discuss rape so I won't answer this question.

Maybe someone else can chime in? Or maybe you can comment on the 'natural murderer' aspect of the human species? Are humans 'natural murderers'?

I'm not trying to convince people that humans are 'natural' this or that, but I'm very critical against the idea that eating meat should be seen as a natural part of the human diet - which usually goes along with the 'humans are natural omnivores' argument. This is why I think this topic is important. Now, if an activity 'observed in human history/in nature' is the only criterion for defining something as 'natural', humans should be classified as 'natural' murderers, which IMO not only distorts any discussion about this topic, but which doesn't add *anything* to it at all. Why say that we are 'natural murderers' (of animals, for example) when all we need to agree upon is that humans have killed humans and animals throughout the history, and that we still are capable of doing so, which is so obvious that it doesn't deserve a discussion...

Do lions successfully consume meat or is that also an oxymoron?

That's a topic that IMO doesn't have much to do with the topic of this thread, for a number of reasons. In spite of eg. cats having been observed killing mice 'just for fun', meat eating animals usually eat because they need to, and as we know - humans don't, which we agree in. Any discussion about lions 'unsuccessfully' consuming meat would be rather futile - the fact is that they do. They don't seem to have any other choice, and I haven't seen anyone try to convince all the wild lions in the world to survive on hummus and pita. This is a non-topic.

The questions that normally are avoided my people who claim that meat is to be seen as a natural part of the human diet (since we are 'natural omnivores') are....

• If humans 'may' eat eg. meat, in small quantities without experiencing any health problems, does it make sense to use this fact as a reference for labeling humans 'natural meat eaters'?
• Do we really need to classify humans according to the carnivore/omnivore/herbivore labels originally coined for non-human animals, if this only causes misunderstandings?
• Who, specifically, were these "early humans" which are being referred to as our meat eating ancestors, and when did they live? Do we know that they ate meat in all relevant periods? Do we know that they ate meat when they had other options? This is important unless we simply claim that some of our ancestors ate meat, while others didn't.
• Why is it important to classify humans as *natural* omnivores or *natural* meat eaters? If this way of using the word (as Mahk suggests) also implies that we eg. should see humans as 'natural' cannibals, how interesting is the topic (the topic being if humans are natural omnivores) really? It seems to only create mis-communication.

---

I'm not a nutritionist, but if I were, and someone asked me if I thought food X was something that could be considered a 'natural' thing to eat, I'd say no (or yes, but add a loud and clear "but only if....")if restrictions about small amounts, unprocessed etc. would exist.

If a pregnant woman would claim that she didn't have a problem with eg. using dope/smoke/alcohol during pregnancy, and if whatever drugs (or similar) she were referring to were known to cause problems in all but small quantities (etc), no health practitioner would say "sure, just use them, it's natural for humans to want to intoxicate themselves".

When it comes to eating meat, the opposite seems to be the case for most meat eaters and some vegans: meat eating should be seen as something 'natural' to eat for humans, based on the assumption that the many health problems associated with meat eating wouldn't exist if meat would be eaten in small quantities, and only if certain normal ways to prepare and process meat would be avoided.

If we assume that humans may eat small amounts of meat without health problems, that this is true only if the meat is processed in certain ways or not processed at all, wouldn't it make more sense to just say that 'humans may eat meat in small amounts without any health risks' than to claim that meat as such is to be seen as something that's 'natural' for us to eat? Humans do a lot of things on a regular basis that are nowhere near being natural, 'occurring in nature' etc. and I don't think any of us have a problem with that. A major misunderstanding comes when two "arguments" are presented simultaneously: "Eating animal products is a natural thing for humans to do" and "Humans who don't need animal will naturally need to take supplements - which omnivores don't".

The conclusion they may come to - based on these to "facts" - is that eating vegan food isn't such a good idea.

[Mahk]

Charles Darwin was a vegetarian. Does this little tidbit belong in this thread?

If he was indeed a vegetarian [and not specifically a vegan] then there is a strong possibility he ate eggs and dairy which the Vegetarian Society says is quite permissible by their definition of "vegetarian". Since both milk protein and egg protein are animal proteins, a creature that ingests these things would be classified as a carnivore if they ate them alone, or an "omnivore" if they additionally ate vegetable matter. Omnivorous means, "capable of eating and assimilating both animal and vegetable matter, if the animal chooses to, but it doesn't necessarily have to". Vegans live a lifestyle that can be described as "herbivorous", but to falsely claim they are incapable of ingesting and assimilating animal protein because they are actually herbivores is a lie.

Carnivores which eat eggs are called ovivores. Raccoons eat eggs they steal from nests but also vegetable matter, much like many humans, so they are both omnivores. Snakes that eat eggs (but don't eat any vegetable matter) are pure carnivores:


or if that didn't work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLk4rsCNFFU
---

Here's a quiz I stumbled upon for everyone. I got 100% but there were a few guesses on my part... Apples? I'm glad I took French to guess the correct word. [hint]

[The IVU says Darwin may have been an animal lover and admirer of vegetarians, but he himself wasn't a vegetarian, BTW, despite Professor Luis Vallejo Rodríguez, Secretary of the Canarian Vegetarian Association, or anyone else's possible implications otherwise.]

[cobweb]

Just wanted to add that there are plenty of animals around who are 'natural herbivores' but may still be capable of ingesting animal matter. They're still 'natural' herbivores.

[Korn]

Since both milk protein and egg protein are animal proteins, a creature that ingests these things would be classified as a carnivore if they ate them alone...

According to which source?

Carnivore, according to every definition I've seen, means someone (usually used about animals) who eats flesh/meat as a main part of their diet - or as their only food source). "Carne" is latin and means flesh, and "vorare" means "to devour", which is why it isn't normal to use carnivore about someone who doesn't eat flesh.

Omnivorous means, "capable of eating and assimilating both animal and vegetable matter, if the animal chooses to, but it doesn't necessarily have to".

Which source are you referring to this time?

Vegans live a lifestyle that can be described as "herbivorous", but to falsely claim they are incapable of ingesting and assimilating animal protein because they are actually herbivores is a lie.

I've asked this question before, but didn't get a reply: did anyone here suggest that humans are not capable of ingesting/assimilating animal protein? If not, why do we need to discuss if this claim is a "lie" or not?

This discussion has many similarities with the usual talk that happens when vegans discuss with meat eaters. The typical ingredients are claims either about "humans always ate meat" or "early humans ate meat" (not followed up by answers re. which hominids/time period they refer to), a convenient change of the definition of omnivorous, and the usual, an equally convenient change of topic when the questions they can't respond to pop up... and finally, either a claim that there's no need to discuss the topic because all experts agree (which we have documented that they don't) or referral to others who apparently have the same opinion instead of actually answering questions. When their arguments fall apart, they usually switch to something they know many will agree in, like for instance "but humans have a problem with digesting grass!". And, if other meat eaters are present, some of them may join in and claim that what their opinions are, but not even try to explain how they got to this conclusion.

I consider reopening a section for discussing with meat eaters - of course only visible to members of our "Vegan/Non-Vegan Discussion" user group, in hope that some meat eater out there is capable of explaining either why they think they should eat because "humans are omnivores", or at least provide a more or less convincing explanation of why humans should be considered 'natural' omnivorous.

those that do not weigh evidence very heavily

This got me curious! Which evidence are you thinking of?

We know that loads of humans have been eating a lot of meat throughout the ages, but even if most humans in the Western world are raised on a meat based diet, very few express killer instincts if they see birds or animals in their environment. Based on my own experiences, I can only say that the instinct to kill an animal is non-existent - and also was non-existing when I was a meat eater. This seems to be quite common.

If the lack of a natural killer instinct is common, one can ask why so many humans have been eating so much meat throughout history. How did it all start?

One possible explanation could be that our species gradually is evolving from being "natural meat eaters" to becoming "natural herbivores".

Others may claim the opposite: that we originally were herbivorous (lets ignore for the moment that all earth life originally started in the sea, so we were all originally plankton consumers if we go far enough back). It has been discussed that current humans may have reduced B12 synthesizing capabilities as a result of having started to eat meat, in order to not get too high B12 levels.

But why would a species who at best were capable of trying to killing animals eg. by throwing stones at them start eating them if they didn't have to? I can see that it's easy to catch insects, larvae and even rats and mice, but very few people (vegans or not) seem to have interesting in defending the 'naturalness' of eating rats or earthworms.

It seems to me that all this may be related to topics that haven't been mentioned often in these discussions: the so called 'population bottlenecks', super-volcanic explosions followed by vast amount of land covered by poisonous ash, followed up 'volcanic winters' which caused even more trouble. Then there's of course the ice ages and other natural disasters - like eg. earth quakes - natural climate changes, deadly diseases, and more.

One side effect of some of the known disasters our ancestors have faced was the need to escape. If plant life was suffering (due to temperature changes, ice age, volcanic winters, the ground covered by ash etc) we know that plant eaters would suffer as well.

Living in an triple emergency situation (no ways to locally feed themselves and their kids by plants, having to defend themselves against large and strong animals wanting to eat them and having to escape from their original territory), their only way to survive would probably be to eat other animals whenever they had a chance to do so. The only other alternative was to die, and see their family members die. In that respect our ancestors were really close to omnivorous/carnivorous animals who eat meat because they need to.

Link these historical events with the facts that humans easily are 'enslaved' by their own habits, and eating meat will seem like a natural thing to do for these humans and pre-humans.

In another thread, I've posted a link to the story about Oxana Malaya, who after having spent a few years of her childhood living with dogs, surviving on raw meat, and, we'll see that children growing up in a culture where humans had to eat meat to survive soon will consider meat as a natural part of their diet, and continue to eat it even if they don't need to. If it took Oxana Malaya 5 years to switch from normal human behavior to start to walk on all fours, eat like a dog and lose her human language but bark instead, imagine what human children went through during the many periods of natural disasters human ancestors have faced.

Now, I'm sure someone will claim that Oxana Malaya's store is fake, but there are about 100 known cases of 'feral children', and we the same pattern in them (at least the ones I'm aware of); it takes extremely short time for a human child to start to behave like an animal.

The problem with our species is that we somehow seem to be way "too adaptive" when it comes to behavior. This, combined with the fact that our way of dealing with our habits/adaptations aren't always rationally founded (as shown in this example) results in a lot of un-necesary cruel behavior that in emergency situations probably could be seen as a "natural" response in order to survive, but which under normal circumstances has nothing to do with 'natural', let alone 'necessary'.

Here's a YouTube version of the article linked above:



It shows that it takes a human child only a few minutes to 'learn' a habit that it doesn't need to follow. We copy ourselves and our habits (+ our paren'ts habits etc) to an embarrassing degree, which not only adds an interesting perspective to how we can explain the common-ness about of meat, but also regarding the way we, as vegans, deal with seeing meat as a natural part of our species' diet.

[Mahk]

Originally Posted by Mahk View Post
Even more perplexing for you is that the Vegan Society completely agrees with me for the exact same reason: science.

Except that one person has written something about that, once, one their site, I haven't seen any official statement from them about that.

You are inncorrect that it appears only once. Here is another example, beyond the one you already linked to previously which said "Humans are omnivores, which doesn't mean we HAVE to eat both plants and animals. It means we can survive on either" {link}", taken from the Vegan Society pages :

"Answers to Some of Those Tricky Questions/Challenges

"Eating meat is natural"

Vegan Society response: "Human beings are omnivores and don't need to kill other beings in order to live healthily - eating meat is no more natural than not eating meat."

[emphasis mine] Both are equally natural, then.

This, above, is from their most recent Winter 2009 newsletter, The Vegan, and is also linked to from their site directly, so it is quite up to date in reflecting their current stance.

Not enough? OK, here's yet another:

"Vegan Basics - FAQ's

Question: Aren't humans naturally meat eaters?

Answer: Human nature includes traits such as stealing and lying - this doesn't make these morally right." [emphasis mine]

Bingo! We have a winner! They nailed it right there. Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it. The reason we shouldn't do these things is because of morals, not because it is against human's natural biological design.

that statement could be seen only as the same kind of slip they had a while ago where they defined 'vegan' based on what people ate only.

It's no slip, Korn, it's them accepting current scientific wisdom. Humans can and do sometimes eat animal matter making them omnivores, not herbivores. Every single person in this thread, I believe, has at one point done so for that matter. [Unless there is a vebra here. (vegan since birth)]

[Mahk]

But at least I know now that you think humans are 'natural cannibals' as well as 'natural omnivores'.

That's interesting that you think you know my view on the matter considering I've never uttered the words cannibal, cannibals, or cannibalism anywhere in this thread, excluding this very sentence. Again, please do an Advanced search on those three words searching on forum member Mahk posts only and you'll see the only occurrence is this very post. [I also know very little about the topic, for that matter.]

[Mahk]

Or maybe you can comment on the 'natural murderer' aspect of the human species? Are humans 'natural murderers'?.

Yes. Everyday and almost everywhere there many murders. This has been true since forever. In fact 27 different governments around the globe, including (unfortunately) my own, are currently practicing a systematized version of humans murdering other humans by the thousands which often goes by the name "war". Other species do it as well.

[Prawnil]

Humans can and do sometimes eat animal matter. Every single person in this thread, I believe, has at one point done so.

This discussion isn't a true discussion while this is still treated as contended, or even relevant. It hasn't been contended. By anyone.
Treating omnivorism as simply the physiological capacity to digest animal matter and plant matter is a mistake. Typically, 'general-consensus' herbivores are smallish, novelty-averse creatures whose gut bacteria are most efficient at generating an energy source from plant matter. That is not mutually exclusive with animal-matter digestion: You can feed a guinea pig a (supplemented) diet of almost total animal protein without deleterious effect, but the efficiency of digestion is lowered (because of this, the animal will actually tend to eat more animal protein than it would plant protein).

Our species and ancestors are highly innovative, and relative to 'lower' animals will take advantage of what works, being novelty-adaptive (like Korn has said, & I totally agree that the adaptation-to-catastrophy diet alteration idea is likely). 'Lower' creatures than Hominids have a closer relationship between physiological need/adaptation and intake - like the sodium/salt-hunger. Humans may enjoy salt, but do not develop the urge to take in sodium during sodium deficiency that, say, a rodent does. As such, the hominid exploitative character allows greater 'deviation' from physiological adaptation - essentially, that's our human-ness. And also as such, the terms for feeding behaviour and 'design' are relatively meaningless.

[Mahk]

This discussion isn't a true discussion while this is still treated as contended, or even relevant. It hasn't been contended. By anyone.

Good, then you agree an omnivore is a kind of animal that eats either other animals or plants; humans, as a species, are omnivores, not herbivores, not carnivores. Like the millions of other omnivores, like our nearest living relative the chimpanzee which we share over 92% similar DNA, we have a choice. True carnivores and true herbivores don't have this choice.

You can feed a guinea pig a (supplemented) diet of almost total animal protein without deleterious effect, but the efficiency of digestion is lowered

Supplements don't count and are cheating. If you force feed a guinea pig a diet of just pork, beef, and chicken it will die. [and if you force feed a lion a diet of just hay, it will die too.]

[sandra]

Yes. Everyday and almost everywhere there many murders. This has been true since forever. In fact 27 different governments around the globe, including (unfortunately) my own, are currently practicing a systematized version of humans murdering other humans by the thousands which often goes by the name "war". Other species do it as well.

Other species go to war?

The more I read this thread the more I despair of humans. They kill and eat other animals and human animals not because they were designed to do so but just because they can.

They are aggressive, argumentative and hostile to each other. They go to war and commit other atrocious acts. They rape and torture and generally treat the earth like a dustbin.

I don't really like being human.

[Korn]

That's interesting that you think you know my view on the matter considering I've never uttered the words cannibal, cannibals, or cannibalism anywhere in this thread, excluding this very sentence. Again, please do an Advanced search on those three words searching on forum member Mahk posts only and you'll see the only occurrence is this very post. [I also know very little about the topic, for that matter.]

Here's my question to you, posted earlier in this thread:

Based on your "free will" criterions for 'natural omnivores', Mahk, should the human species be considered 'natural cannibals', if the humans that have been observed 'in nature' eating other humans claim that nobody forced them to do it?

Yes. Eating one's own species is found in many species. It occurs in nature so it is natural by my definition of the word.

Your "Yes" to that questions means that you think humans are natural cannibals if humans have been observed 'in nature' eating other humans and nobody forced them to do it.

The discussion about what human behavior that is derived from our 'nature', and what behaviors that is a result of cultural influence, neurosis, emergency situations, learned or forced habits etc. has been going on for ages, which anyone only vaguely familiar with eg Zen or Taoism will know. This topic has also been discussed between Christians and non-Christians a lot ("Are humans natural born sinners"). Likewise, in discussions about psychotherapy/child psychology, a similar been discussed for a long time: Are children aggressive/violent by nature, or does such behavior occur only as a result of childhood traumas or in extreme situations?

"Vegan Basics - FAQ's

Question: Aren't humans naturally meat eaters?

Answer: Human nature includes traits such as stealing and lying - this doesn't make these morally right." [emphasis mine]

Bingo! We have a winner! They nailed it right there. Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it. The reason we shouldn't do these things is because of morals, not because it is against human's natural biological design.

Many claim that human behavior (and the planet in general) is way off it's original, natural state. This is the reason for a lot of inter-human, environmental and animal rights related conflicts. However, I don't TVS' answer that way. It looks more like a smart way to say that "even if humans, in some/many situations may eat meat, steal or lie, this doesn't mean that it's right to do it". They simply skip the question and goes directly to the important part.

When you write "Rather than denying that humans steal, lie, kill etc they simply just admit it", I really wonder why this discussion exist, because nobody has been denying that members of the human species have been stealing, killing, eating meat etc.

But you are right that humans as omnivore has been mentioned one or a couple of times their pages I haven't seen, so let's see if this is something they have discussed and have an official opinion about or not.

The difference between claiming that "humans have been eating meat", "humans have been stealing/lying", "humans have been murdering/raping" on one side, and to claim that we are natural (born) murderers/rapers/thieves/liars/meat eaters is extreme.

The main disagreement seems to be around the use of the word 'natural', which in my not so humble opinion often is confused with 'normal'.

One misunderstanding seems to happen if we don't distinguish between the different ways of using the word 'natural'. What's considered a natural (as in reasonable) response to an extreme situation doesn't have to be part of human nature - when discussing normal behavior, in "non-extreme" situations.

The fact that it's 'natural' for humans to create and follow habits (transferred from generation to generation) also adds to the confusion. If humans nowadays eat synthetic food, synthetic sweeteners etc., that doesn't make these products 'natural'.

Some people don't think that while cannibalism, rape, murder and violence against other humans/children/animals have been observed among humans, such behavior isn't necessarily part of our 'natural state'. Luckily, where most of us live, its' not even part of the 'normal' state for most humans. Humans aren't natural born murderers/cannibals/meat eaters/rapers/thieves etc even if we as a species have the potential to harm and kill others.

I'm closing this thread know. Many of the questions haven't been responded to, the discussion isn't only going nowhere, but as Prawnil suggests, it's debatable if we are even having a real discussion about at least one of the central topics involved.

If someone wants to follow up on the unanswered topics and questions brought up in this thread, please start (a)new thread(s).