Quote:
Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden
I hate these since the beginning of time arguments.
Physiologically humans have changed considerably over the last few thousand years. The digestive response to some foods included. That not withstanding There is evidence that Homo Erectus had a diet that included grains.
The reason why people believe that meat was such an important part of prehistoric diets is because evidence for meat consumption preserves much better in the archaeological record.
From the year 10,000 BCE to present grain has been one of the most important sources of food energy for nearly all parts of the world with the exceptions of circumpolar populations.
|
I disagree. It's not humans that have changed substantially. We've changed plants to contain more carbohydrates, fats, and proteins that we can digest. For example, wheat does not exist in its current form in nature. We've bread a grass to produce far more energy for humans. This happened relatively recently too. The same goes for modern fruits and vegetables.
The argument for meat, is that is the only thing that exists in the wild that
can sustain a human being. Humans can get some basic sugars and vitamins from fruits, but unlike even our closest relatives, chimpanzees we cannot ruminate and break down fibre into energy. We've essentially changed fruits to make them large bags of water and sugar, because that tastes good.
The biggest argument against meat, is that vegetarians typically also have have calorie restricted diets that lead to weight loss, which is healthy. There are also moral arguments about the treatment of animals.