Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: GoVeg on human evolution

  1. #1
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default GoVeg on human evolution

    Early Human Evolution
    If it's so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors turn to animal flesh for sustenance?

    During most of our evolutionary history, we were largely vegetarian.12 You could probably figure this out by noting that all the great apes, our closest living relatives, are also predominantly herbivorous. Like apes, our bodies evolved to eat fruits, nuts, and vegetables.13

    Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham and his colleagues first explained that root vegetables—and the ability to cook them—prompted the evolution of large brains, smaller teeth, modern limb proportions, and even male-female bonding.14 Plant foods like potatoes made up the bulk of our ancestors' diet and spurred our advancement as a species.

    The addition of modest amounts of meat to the early human diet came with the invention of fire, which allowed us to eat meat without being killed by it (usually). This practice did not turn our ancestors into carnivores but rather supplemented their traditional plant foods and allowed early humans to survive in periods when plant foods were unavailable.

    Anthropologists believe that early humans started to consume small amounts of meat when climate changes made plant foods scarce. During this period, starting a little over a million years ago, humans began to hunt animals for sustenance in the ever-changing landscapes they encountered during their migrations.15

    Modern Humans
    Fully modern human beings (Homo sapiens) evolved about 150,000 years ago in Africa and soon spread across the globe.16 With the advent of agriculture, about 23,000 years ago, humans began to gather seeds and cultivate crops to provide a more consistent food supply.17 Our ancestors occasionally killed animals for their flesh, but they still received most of their nutrition from plant sources. Until recently, only the wealthiest people could afford to feed, raise, and slaughter animals for their flesh. Consequently, prior to the 20th century, only the rich died from diseases like heart disease, obesity, and strokes.

    Read more.

    12 Christine Haran, "Want to Dodge Heart Disease With Diet? Eat Like an Ape," 22 Aug. 2003.
    13 United Press International, "Ape Diet Good at Reducing Cholesterol," 23 Jul. 2003.
    14 Elizabeth Pennisi, "Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Bigger Brains?" Science, 26 Mar. 1999.
    15 James Q. Jacobs, "Reflections on the Origins of Scavenging and Hunting in Early Hominids," 4 Jul. 2000.
    16 Encyclopedia Britannica, "Homo Sapiens," 14 Dec. 2004.
    17 BBC News, "Farming Origins Gain 10,000 Years," BBC News Online, 23 Jun. 2004.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  2. #2
    Fervent vegan DiaShel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    What I'm curious about is what would happen if other herbivorous animals were feed cooked meat. Would they be able to process it the way humans can or are we some freak exception?
    "To reduce suffering means to reduce the amount of ignorance, the basic affliction with us." -Thich Nhat Hanh

  3. #3
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    Many animals have the ability to eat lots of things. Most just eat what their genetics tell them to. Animals eat often out of opportunity. I'm sure that many herbivores could certainly eat raw or cooked meat. From what I have read, humans have a somewhat tender digestive system due to the types of enzymes that are found in the digestive system. That is an argument put forth as to why humans shouldn't eat meat. That is not to say that we do not have the ability. And here I am back at the beginning of my point.
    Humans seem to be an exception because even though our digestive systems are not ideally adapted to the consumption of flesh we do it anyway and is a part of most cultures worldwide.
    I also have some issues with that article (being an anthropologist). First I would argue with the 185kya estimate. From everything I have learned it is closer to 200kya. Second is says that early humans survived on things like potatoes. It's a bad analogy because potatoes were first cultivated in the western hemisphere and didn't reach the east until the 16th or 17th century CE. I'm just being nitpicky.
    Any corrections or addendums to my comments would be awesome, yo.
    pro-vegetable

  4. #4
    Relocation shiny2008's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    81

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    Fruits, nuts and vegs are the foods evolved to the human...but wondering when / why humans started kill animals?...the lack? the war? or?...
    We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

  5. #5
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    The article answers that question:
    Anthropologists believe that early humans started to consume small amounts of meat when climate changes made plant foods scarce. During this period, starting a little over a million years ago, humans began to hunt animals for sustenance in the ever-changing landscapes they encountered during their migrations
    Though I don't have a lot of training in the field of early Homo Sapiens this is certainly a discussion I have encountered and is a reasonable explanation abeit it being uber-simplistic.
    pro-vegetable

  6. #6
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    I really don't think this kind of article helps anyone TBH, behaving like my 'evolutionary ancestors' (150k+ years ago) would do me no favours in todays society.

    Everything evolved from the sea I believe but it certainly would do us no favours to spend all our lives swimming under water hunting for algae to eat.
    "I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

  7. #7
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    For one you do behave like, what you call your, "evolutionary ancestors". There are many things we do that may seem out of place because we have all this crazy technology. And also our earliest ancestors came from the water some 500 million years ago! Of course you don't have any inclination to go in the water, humans haven't evolved to do that. 500 million years is a long time, really long time. Homo sapiens sapiens have only been around for ~200ky, and hominids only a few million.
    pro-vegetable

  8. #8
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    I'm not saying we don't do many things that would be out of place, I'm just not saying we should. These kind of articles seem to suggest that we should do what our 'evolutionary ancestors' did and it's not something I agree with.
    "I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

  9. #9
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    I don't know if the article is saying that we should eat meat as much as it is saying how it is that we started to eat meat. I interpreted the article as simply an interesting FYI to our dietary choices. That said, we have choices today, and all of us here are making the choice not to consume animal products because we have the ability.
    pro-vegetable

  10. #10
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    Quote shiny2008 View Post
    wondering when / why humans started kill animals?
    According to Publisher's Weekly's description of Man The Hunted....

    Contrary to the familiar image of the aggressive, spear-wielding "caveman," our hominid ancestors were more hunted than hunters, more preyed upon than slayers of large predators, contend wildlife conservationist Hart and anthropologist Sussman. The authors note that as anthropologists and primatologists have studied various primate species in the African and Asian rainforests, many myths have been dispelled about how aggressive these primates (who resemble our ancestors) were and how they reacted to predation. And as more early hominid fossils have been discovered, researchers have come to realize that they were small enough to make a tasty snack for a pack of large hyenas. One skull bears twin holes that match exactly the fangs of a leopard; another displays scratches that suggest the victim was carried off by a very large bird of prey. Modern-day humans are still preyed upon in many places: mountain lions have ambushed joggers in California, and in southern Africa, the crowned harp-eagle occasionally carries off a small child. The authors maintain that our need to socialize stems from early hominids' improved odds of survival when they banded together against predators. Some readers may raise an eyebrow at the suggestion that our predilection for a beautiful scenic view evolved from our ancestors' scanning the African grasslands for danger, but the authors' novel proposals merit serious consideration.
    Our ancestors were much smaller than us. Without weapons, we could easily become victims of larger animals' appetite, and one example that often is mentioned is that our babies could be (and probably were) caught by large birds. We simply needed a way to ensure that we didn't become food.



    Like many others, I also find it likely that our early ancestors considered eating meat as a result of plant foods in certain periods being scarce. I've also read various places that humans first meetings with meat wasn't as hunters, but as scavengers:

    Hunting ancient scavengers - some anthropologists say early humans were scavengers, not hunters.

    Quote burl View Post
    Second is says that early humans survived on things like potatoes.
    According to other material I've seen, it wasn't potatoes, but starch/tubers:


    http://scienceblogs.com/neurophiloso..._evolution.php

    (Also discussed here: http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20643 )

    Discussions about human evolution are sometimes ending up with one part insisting that we should behave is if there have been no human evolution at all, or that we are not part of that evolutionary development. The core of the idea behind the theory about human evolution is that evolution actually is happening, unlike creationist theories, which insists that the world just 'popped up from nothing' a few thousand years ago.

    The core of that theory about evolution is that we change; that we are different from our ancestors. If we were not, there wouldn't have been any evolution.

    Our brains are different, our needs are different, our capabilities are, we look different. We know things our ancestors didn't - in short, our behavior and lifestyle is very different from their lifestyle an behavior. Due to all these differences; due to the fact that we actually have evolved, there's no reason to claim that we should start eating larvae, meat or anything else that our ancestors may have eaten ten thousands of years ago. Not only is that diet not superior, current humans don't even have access to the necessary quantities of fresh/organic larvae, earthworms or birds that our ancestors had.

    "The only way you can evolve from one type of species into another is by growing up in a different way, because that's how you change." Millions of humans have survived on a meat free diet for thousands of years - and by doing that, we are actively influencing our evolution, which must be better than looking up a theory about what our ancestors at some point in history and copy their menu.

    Plant food is still very common in the area that by scientists is considered the area where the first human ancestors were located, but I don't think people in this area eat all the vegan food the eat because their ancestor ate it - but because it makes sense.

    There's no reason to try to freeze the evolution/development of our species. To do that would be to insist on some sort of anti-evolutionary theory - not a concept that acknowledges evolution. It would be a concept that more or less insisted that while we have evolved as a species, we should behave/eat as if we had not.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

  11. #11
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    My potato comment was simply an interesting observation and I never said that that were in fact potatoes. Hence the "like".
    When you say our ancestors were smaller than us do you mean Homo sapiens sapiens, or further back to Australopithecus? As we know Lucy and he early counterparts were small and were probably hunted. As hominids evolved, they began to stand more upright, which then allowed them to move more quickly (longer strides). Be it to run away from hunters or to chase prey, while also giving them a better view without having to necessarily climb a tree. Also, there are groups today and in recorded history who are very small. This comes from the fact that their environment has selected that phenotype for being advantageous.
    In science there are no "shoulds". There are things that certain organisms should do, but don't always. Humans are certainly the best example. If we did what we should do then I doubt a lot of the technology and our massive populations would exist. But for some reason there are evolutionary traits that have stayed with us and helped humans do what we've done.

    I'm not sure where you got the idea that we should "freeze the evolution/development of our species". In all honesty that's pretty much impossible. From what I have studied about evolution we will evolve no matter what. No one here has justified the "freeze" stance (unless I'm mistaken). But, if you look at it from a modern perspective, it isn't that we aren't evolving, it is that whatever gave us what you can all "consciousness" hasn't necessarily been a net positive from an evolutionary standpoint. Not only are we systematically destroying our ecosystem (Earth) but we are preserving genes that do not help us. This is the argument for social darwinism, which is quite crude and cruel. Today we would never think of performing infanticide, but it was common among gatherer-hunter groups to preserve the group. Basically modern medicine is making people's lives better but not the proverbial gene pool.
    Why do people still eat meat? Why not? I think that's the argument. We all know it as vegans. We do a lot of things that don't make sense. We have sex with no intention of procreating because we use contraception. That essentially doesn't make any sense. The fact that it is pleasurable may be linked to the fact that if we don't there won't be any of us in the future. That being the ultimate goal of a species, to continue forever (hypothetically).

    One last thing. I don't know if you did this intentionally or if it's just semantics, but when you say the "theory of evolution" I hope you are meaning the well documented, well supported, obeservable phenomenon that we call the theory of evolution.

    Damn, I just got up and you have me writing this kind of stuff. Sheesh.
    pro-vegetable

  12. #12
    Prawnil
    Guest

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution


    When referring to a theory as a theory is reason enough to suspect that the person speaking doubts its explanatory power, we've got proooob-lems.

  13. #13
    Abe Froman Risker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Winchester, England
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    .
    Last edited by Risker; Jan 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 PM. Reason: misread
    "I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

  14. #14
    burl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    Quote Prawnil View Post
    When referring to a theory as a theory is reason enough to suspect that the person speaking doubts its explanatory power, we've got proooob-lems.
    Well no, that's not right. Most people have a skewed concept of what theory means. First of all, nothing is for sure, nothing. That isn't to say that things don't have explanation and overwhelming evidence aren't close to the "truth". Everything in science is essentially a theory (if you are so inclined).
    Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...heory_and_fact as a great discussion of this tropic.
    Here is a quote by Richard Dawkins taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...of_creationism
    In a December 2004 interview with American journalist Bill Moyers, Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know". When Moyers questioned him on the use of the word theory, Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."[54]
    And how!
    pro-vegetable

  15. #15
    Ex-admin Korn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,830

    Default Re: GoVeg on human evolution

    Quote burl View Post
    When you say our ancestors were smaller than us do you mean Homo sapiens sapiens, or further back to Australopithecus? As we know Lucy and he early counterparts were small and were probably hunted.

    Hi,
    I was going further back than our most recent ancestors. From what I've seen, there are now circa 21 known hominoids - and the idea theory that our ancestors were developed in one long, single chain, one following the others seem to be agreed upon as wrong: there were several more or less human-like ancestors living in parallel.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole idea of defining one era in our evolutionary history as 'our ancestors', Even if someone would do that, they sometimes seem to forget that these ancestors also had their ancestors etc. The whole idea about looking at something that happened 150,000-200,000 years ago (or 3 mill. years ago), and claim that we should eat what they did doesn't make sense at all to me. It doesn't even make sense to look at what another group of humans eat today, and say that we should eat what they do either. Regarding height, even today there are great variations from area to area - even from North India to South India, and if we should copy another recent or historic) group's diet - which should we copy?

    Various reports suggest that there has been a rather dramatic change in human average height during the past 2000 years. The average height for humans where I live (Norway) has increased mode than 7 cm in only 50 years! If it's correct that all life started as sea life, and if it actually would be a good idea to always look back in history and look at what our ancestors ate (and their ancestors etc), we should all eat plankton, I guess...


    I'm not sure where you got the idea that we should "freeze the evolution/development of our species". In all honesty that's pretty much impossible.
    I was probably unclear, because that's my point too. Since we are so different from our ancestors, and they were different from their ancestors again (and so on), the argument about eating what someone belonging to a certain group of hominoids ate in some period (doesn't matter if it is 10, 100, 1000 or 100,000 years ago, and imitate their menu is simply illogical. Evolution can't be frozen, so why freeze the idea about what's best for us in any given time in history?
    Last edited by Korn; Jan 25th, 2009 at 03:34 PM.
    I will not eat anything that walks, swims, flies, runs, skips, hops or crawls.

Similar Threads

  1. BBC: Starch 'fuel of human evolution'
    By Korn in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jun 22nd, 2011, 02:58 PM
  2. different branches of human evolution?
    By rainleaf in forum Human evolution and environmental issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: May 20th, 2009, 09:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •