"Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton."
This is some good material to ponder on. If eating animals was a neccessary catalyst into homo sapien evolution ( high-protein based diets were neccessary for us to develop large brains, and therefore great intellect ), what implications does this have on our vegan beliefs -- and how we can align our views to maintain consistency and not be hypocrites as vegan accuse many meat-eaters of being.
I would seem to imply that nature is indeed amoral, and eating meat is in and of itself not wrong whatsoever. It makes sense to me that humans are simply a random animal that chanced upon high-protein diets and was in a favorable condition to evolve into intelligent beings. In fact, I view this occurance not as brutal, but beautiful. To think that human logic which created morality, by logic condemns the very process by which we gained logic.
Nearly a catch-22.
However I would argue that eating meat is indeed immoral by today's standards. We have transcended our primitive state, and I think the best way we can honor the lives of those beings which aided us in becoming rational beings is to NOT EAT THEM for no other eason than because we can. Not to mention, we now have the capacity to not only live off of non-animal diets, but to be healthier in doing so, and cheaper!
Actually all of this reminds me of Seaside's awesome signature:
Veganism originated from the idea that any sentient being has rights. In the sovereignty of nature these are ignored, but we're human, presumably- we've moved on and we respect life.