Klytemnest, i am personally convinced that early man was herbivorous because we evolved from apes who are primarily herbivorous, and we are without the usual built-in hunting equipment such as talons and large fang teeth. Also humans are not lightning quick or stealthy on their two feet, and the kind of large animals we seem to have eventually hunted required that humans used traps or tools in order to do so. It would also appear than man only started eating other animals in conjunction with the discovery of fire (on which to cook the flesh) so i can only assume that before this time we would have gathered whatever was edible in the form of plant foods which are easier to eat and digest uncooked.
i think that we would do well to follow a 'primitive' type diet consisting largely of uncooked plant foods, seeds, and nuts, yes, i do
.
by my definition therefore, man is naturally herbivorous but evolved to eat flesh for whatever reason - maybe periods where plant foods were not abundant for whatever reason?. As an example of omnivore vs herbivore, i think of the dog - they can digest both plant and flesh foods very well and could be raised (by humans these days) as either omnivorous, or carnivorous - or herbivorous. The way a dog eats, or the way a person eats, could fit into any of these categories, with (imo) herbivorous being the best choice.
Personally i would chose to remain vegan even if i stumbled upon the most compelling proof that humans were 'designed' to be otherwise (i have never come across such proof and doubt i ever will), so for that reason what is 'natural' is not important to me as far as my personal choices go. What does annoy me is when people start making it an issue that 'humans are omnivores' - humans (most of them) also drink cows milk, does that also make them bovine?
.
Bookmarks