Are humans omnivores or herbivores?

[StickyEnd]

From a slightly different pespective, and probably the reason why this thread has gone on so long, is that there is a resisitance to accepting the established palaeanthropololgical knowledge. ( dont ask me to spell it again but it means the study of ancient man, that is from many hundreds and possibly millions of years) There were many totally bidpedal hominid species which were not human but lived at the same time as bipdedal Homo species. Biologically we are not hunters, beaviourally we are but that is a recent thing, say 50,000 years, and we wouldnt have done it alone. Some anthropologists have even said that it was the pack instinct of wolves that domesticated us not the other way round.

It seems that there is a pride issue here, that human males want to think of themselves from a long ancestry of hunting, when hunting was marginal to the survival of us all, but spectacular. Lets face it, a painter in a cave wont think about the historical accuracy when paining a hunting scene. Drespite the fact that radishes and turnips kept the hunters alive, he will just go for the spectacle.

I also maintain that mammalian meat is virtually indgestible unless you alter it in some why, by leaving it to rot, or cooking it.

Humans had to have developed hunting long before civilisation existed. Clothing was necessary before our ancestors could leave Africa. It seems very unlikely that the idea of clothing was the first motivation to hunt. Hunting for food and then developing the technology to utilise the side products lying around sounds far more plausible.

Current evidence BTW indicates that modern humans evolved between 1-200,000 years ago. The evidence for tool making in our ancestors goes back to about 2,500,000 years. So toolmaking in our ancesters exceeds modern humanity by about 10-25X in age.

StickyEnd, I find it intriguing that you’re willing to concede that some aspects of the development of human beings, such as the purpose of hunting, or the use of tools, are open to conjecture, but when I say that it's necessary to attain conclusive knowledge of the whole linear development of mankind from the beginnings to the present day, in order to ascertain whether we are, in fact, natural omnivores or herbivores, you scoff at my contention and put it down to pig-headedness and stupidity, or whatever. So why are you "allowed" to ruminate on certain parts of this development, but I'm not? Do I detect an ulterior motive?

MsG

My objection to the way you have behaved on this thread has nothing to do with conjecture or ruminating. You do not accept evidence is what is annoying, that and the postmodernistic idea that everyone's opinion is equal. Oh, and asking for scientific proof.

In reverse order.

Science does not do proof.

You do not really believe that everyone's opinion is equal. Only a madman could accept that.

Evidence is all that was required to develop TV, Radio, Medicine, computers and the internet etc. etc etc. But that aint good enough for you.


Just to be clear, I mean that everyones opinion is not equal on all subjects.

[Doc1701]

The normal run of things is that substances are tested on animals, and then subjected to further (crucial) tests on humans. If animal-testing was so reliable, the logic applied would be: it cures mice, rats, dogs, pigs etc, so now we can give it to humans. But that never happens and no pharmaceutical or cosmetic company would ever risk that.

Oh what an unutterably stupid buffoon you are!

Don't you realise how a chemicals company tests prospective new compounds for safety? Initial candidates get tested in vitro, against cell cultures to see how toxic they are there. About 80% get rejected here. From there, the compounds get tested on mice, to see if there are any whole-organism effects worth noting; things like interfering with cell signalling during limb bud formation in pregnancy (like the silly sods forgot to do with thalidomide).

Then the testing progresses to monkeys, then chimps, then finally to humans, albeit very cautiously.

Testing usually gets focussed on a disease in an animal model of some sort, which is why AIDS research goes so slowly; there isn't an animal model apart from chimps, which don't get sick when given HIV virus.

But the point is, whilst you can cut out 95% of animal testing, you cannot eliminate it all since organisms are such incredibly complex things.

[Bugsy]

The normal run of things is that substances are tested on animals, and then subjected to further (crucial) tests on humans. If animal-testing was so reliable, the logic applied would be: it cures mice, rats, dogs, pigs etc, so now we can give it to humans. But that never happens and no pharmaceutical or cosmetic company would ever risk that.

Oh what an unutterably stupid buffoon you are!

Why do you feel the need to insult me? Is that what you call sensible discussion? Still, if it makes you feel better about yourself, crack on.

Don't you realise how a chemicals company tests prospective new compounds for safety? Initial candidates get tested in vitro, against cell cultures to see how toxic they are there. About 80% get rejected here. From there, the compounds get tested on mice, to see if there are any whole-organism effects worth noting; things like interfering with cell signalling during limb bud formation in pregnancy (like the silly sods forgot to do with thalidomide).

Then the testing progresses to monkeys, then chimps, then finally to humans, albeit very cautiously.

Testing usually gets focussed on a disease in an animal model of some sort, which is why AIDS research goes so slowly; there isn't an animal model apart from chimps, which don't get sick when given HIV virus.

But the point is, whilst you can cut out 95% of animal testing, you cannot eliminate it all since organisms are such incredibly complex things.

Well, that’s the theory. In practice, many of these steps are simply left out (time is money) and that's why so many products are released onto the unsuspecting public, despite insufficient testing. Pharmaceutical companies are out to make money, so they ruthlessly calculate any claims for compensation against possible profits. I rather like your "albeit very cautiously" bit. I've done enough medical outcome translations for German and Swiss pharmaceutical companies to know that they carry out practically all of their human testing in third-world countries, and, believe me, they don't give a monkey's about your "caution". It was a nice try, though.

MsG

[Bravo_Zulu]

...things like interfering with cell signalling during limb bud formation in pregnancy (like the silly sods forgot to do with thalidomide)...

Actually as far as I know it was tested on animals, however the effects were missed as the animals involved didn't reproduce during the test, and it wasn't until much later that the teratogenicity in rabbits was noted; they also recognised at the time that it was chiral. They didn't know that separate isomers could interact so differently or that when one enantiomer is isolated it spontaneously rearranges back into the racemic mixture, and they didn't realise the radical teratogenic effects of the S-isomer. Bear in mind that at the time it was thought that drugs could not pass across the placenta and harm a foetus.

If you get leprosy, in many parts of the world (including the UK on a very limited scale) you'll still get thalidomide as it's very effective.

The take-home message here being that Bugsy is wrong when he says that vivisection is useless for assessing the physiological effects of a drug, and a proper study of thalidomide in rabbits would have killed a lot of rabbits but saved thousands of children from birth defects.

[amazing__lobster]

Bugsy, I can assure you that not all animal research is funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Also, animal research can have profound implications.

An example of a parkinson's intervention that was pioneered using animal research:

He pioneered a ground-breaking treatment for Parkinson's which involves implanting electrodes in the brain, and admits carrying out tests on about 30 monkeys, all of which have been destroyed, in 20 years of research.

Aziz claims the techniques he has pioneered have improved the lives of 40,000 people around the world. One such person is 13-year-old Sean Gardner, from Paisley in Scotland, who suffers from a rare movement disorder called dystonia.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...al-research.do

Personally, I think the life of 30 monkeys is worth improving the standard of living for so many humans.

edit: have to agree with some of the others on this thread by the way - it's very interesting, and probably one of the best threads I've read on ARRSE in a while.

The take-home message here being that Bugsy is wrong when he says that vivisection is useless for assessing the physiological effects of a drug, and a proper study of thalidomide in rabbits would have killed a lot of rabbits but saved thousands of children from birth defects.

I'd like to add that they are also invaluable for assessing the behavioural effects of drugs.

[Dwarf]

As pure vegetarians, adult humans just about cope and children do very badly indeed; imposing a vegan diet on a child blights its development permanently as can be seen in Africa; nutritional deficiencies drop IQ levels there over quite a wide area. The question therefore is not "Are humans vegetarians" but "How much meat and of what sort is a minimum needed by humans"?

Can you back that up?
Could the nutritional deficiencies not be corrected by making sure the vitamins etc. lacking were supplied from other sources? How much is due to poverty and lack of a varied diet?
The way it is put your point seems a bit artitrary.

(Being lacto-veggie from the off hasn't seemed to harm my university-attending, martial-arting daughter.)

[amazing__lobster]

As pure vegetarians, adult humans just about cope and children do very badly indeed; imposing a vegan diet on a child blights its development permanently as can be seen in Africa; nutritional deficiencies drop IQ levels there over quite a wide area. The question therefore is not "Are humans vegetarians" but "How much meat and of what sort is a minimum needed by humans"?

Can you back that up?
Could the nutritional deficiencies not be corrected by making sure the vitamins etc. lacking were supplied from other sources? How much is due to poverty and lack of a varied diet?
The way it is put your point seems a bit artitrary.

(Being lacto-veggie from the off hasn't seemed to harm my university-attending, martial-arting daughter.)

I wonder about the actual circumstances of that finding. too. Because as I posted earlier - a calorie restricted diet without malnutrition is associated with longevity and less disease.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8141082.stm (The original study discussed here was published in Science).

Personally, I think the easiest way to achieve such a diet would be to consume a vegetarian one.

[Bugsy]

ook okk oookk...
look at any human society that does not have access to artificially produced vitamin/mineral supplements. meat, plant or meat/planteaters? hmm guess what ...

Actually, google something like "vegetarian tribes" "vegan tribes" etc... Seems like there are/were a few vegetarian tribes.

Jains, a peculiar Indian religious sect, are purely vegan, or claim to be. In truth their vows of poverty relegate them to eating the very worst of grains, which is lucky from their point of view since poor quality grain is usually lightly contaminated with mouse droppings, and is infested by insect pests too, both of which raise the B vitamin levels just high enough that the hapless Jain can continue to slowly starve to death.

That seems rather disparaging to these folks. After all it is their religion. It also mocks other “peculiar religious sects” like Hinduism, Buddhism etc, who are also vegetarian/vegan to a very large extent. And of course it would have watered down your argument if you'd mentioned that there are something like seven million Jains in the world (around five million in India alone).

In fact, you seem to have some conflict with anybody whose views are at odds with your own, so you descend to an immature level of discussion. Still, if it makes you feel better about yourself, why not?

I believe you’ll find that practically all eastern religions place great emphasis on being in harmony with nature and exercising respect for other forms of life. This has led to them being largely vegetarian/vegan. If the natural state of human beings is omnivore, surely that would inform the mindset and be used as a basis for nutrition in the context of incorporating this into daily life. That didn't actually happen in the case of the eastern religions. The Hindus regard cows as holy, but surely if they had the mindset of a “natural omnivore", such a thought would be furthermost from their minds and they’d see cows, and other animals, purely as a source of food.

MsG

[Monty417]

There's been no input for about er two and a half hours, so, I believe that Homo sapiens are mainly insectivore and used to have four foot long sticky tongues. Basically, you are all wrong therefore.

[StickyEnd]

ook okk oookk...
look at any human society that does not have access to artificially produced vitamin/mineral supplements. meat, plant or meat/planteaters? hmm guess what ...

Actually, google something like "vegetarian tribes" "vegan tribes" etc... Seems like there are/were a few vegetarian tribes.

Jains, a peculiar Indian religious sect, are purely vegan, or claim to be. In truth their vows of poverty relegate them to eating the very worst of grains, which is lucky from their point of view since poor quality grain is usually lightly contaminated with mouse droppings, and is infested by insect pests too, both of which raise the B vitamin levels just high enough that the hapless Jain can continue to slowly starve to death.

1)That seems rather disparaging to these folks. After all it is their religion. It also mocks other “peculiar religious sects” like Hinduism, Buddhism etc, who are also vegetarian/vegan to a very large extent. And of course it would have watered down your argument if you'd mentioned that there are something like seven million Jains in the world (around five million in India alone).

2)In fact, you seem to have some conflict with anybody whose views are at odds with your own, so you descend to an immature level of discussion. Still, if it makes you feel better about yourself, why not?

3)I believe you’ll find that practically all eastern religions place great emphasis on being in harmony with nature and exercising respect for other forms of life. This has led to them being largely vegetarian/vegan. If the natural state of human beings is omnivore, surely that would inform the mindset and be used as a basis for nutrition in the context of incorporating this into daily life. That didn't actually happen in the case of the eastern religions. The Hindus regard cows as holy, but surely if they had the mindset of a “natural omnivore", such a thought would be furthermost from their minds and they’d see cows, and other animals, purely as a source of food.

MsG

1) 7 million Jains, all wrong. God knows how many religious people, all wrong.

2) You are a fine one to talk of imature discusions. Are we still herbivores? Do you know a way of arguing different viewpoints without the "conflict" on here?

3) Religion being introduced to answer a scientific question? Fail.

[finnjim]

3)I believe you’ll find that practically all eastern religions place great emphasis on being in harmony with nature and exercising respect for other forms of life. This has led to them being largely vegetarian/vegan. If the natural state of human beings is omnivore, surely that would inform the mindset and be used as a basis for nutrition in the context of incorporating this into daily life. That didn't actually happen in the case of the eastern religions. The Hindus regard cows as holy, but surely if they had the mindset of a “natural omnivore", such a thought would be furthermost from their minds and they’d see cows, and other animals, purely as a source of food.

Really interesting point that is, next question follows.
Which came first religion or eating?

[mistersoft]

Which came first religion or eating?

It generally depended on when the slop jockey could get out of his pit.

[Excognito]

So why are you "allowed" to ruminate on certain parts of this development, but I'm not? Do I detect an ulterior motive?

You may be causing Sticky's cranium to ferment, but he is (presumably) human and therefore does not possess a Cranial Fermentor. Consequently, he is in capable of 'ruminating' upon anything.

In keeping with homo sapiens physiology, he is unlikely, to have a large Caudal Fermentor, which makes it unlikely he's horsing around or just rabbiting.

[Bugsy]

1)That seems rather disparaging to these folks. After all it is their religion. It also mocks other “peculiar religious sects” like Hinduism, Buddhism etc, who are also vegetarian/vegan to a very large extent. And of course it would have watered down your argument if you'd mentioned that there are something like seven million Jains in the world (around five million in India alone

1) 7 million Jains, all wrong. God knows how many religious people, all wrong.

I’m sorry, but you summarily dismiss the religious beliefs of seven million folks (and others) as "all wrong". Do you see no sort of problem with that?

I do believe you’ve just comprehensively disqualified yourself from any further discussion on the subject, my friend. I've no idea of your personal mental problems, neither do they interest me, but I'd recommend some sort of professional help.

MsG

[Excognito]

If the natural state of human beings is omnivore, surely that would inform the mindset and be used as a basis for nutrition in the context of incorporating this into daily life. That didn't actually happen in the case of the eastern religions. The Hindus regard cows as holy, but surely if they had the mindset of a “natural omnivore", such a thought would be furthermost from their minds and they’d see cows, and other animals, purely as a source of food.

Not at all. This is a philosophical position, possibly based in part on our Empathy.

I, for example, whilst I have no problem tucking into a bacon sandwich, wouldn't dream of eating a dog under normal circumstances - I grew up with dogs and have built up a mental relationship with them that would make eating a dog as unpalatable as eating a human.

However, logically, this is just a variant of Fluffy-Bunnyism - which appears to be why you became 'herbivorous', rather than through any particular physiological drive. Even good old fashioned carnivores such as dogs can be taught to leave certain animals alone even though they would most assuredly be regarded as Dinner in the wild (eg, see Lorenz's "Man meets Dog")