I'm not surprised this discussion has turned into an ethical debate. It always does.
But this thread is about anthropology, not ethics.
I think we can all agree that the mutation that is the human, is unique. It's neither carnivore nor herbivore. It's omnivore.
If you took a lion and fed it nothing but grass, it would die rather soon. If you took a cow and fed it nothing but raw meat, it would die rather soon. These are animals that are attached to their environments. Savanna. Field/meadow.
Yet humans can survive a lifetime on any manner of foods, any place, survive a lack of certain foods, and eating some things that don't even qualify any longer as foods.
The question is more about what is ideal. Hunters and gatherers were the first of the humans to survive well on this planet. Hunting means meat. Gathering means roots, veggies, grubs, fruits/berries, seeds, bark. Therefore, from the get-go, we are meat AND veggie eaters. No argument is possible. It is simply fact.
There were no grains then. Not in any sufficient natural amount to do anything with. The seeds may have been eaten whole but there was no bread. No corn on the cob. No pasta. These are all hybridized inventions of modern man that have almost no resemblance to their natural distant cousins.
What we have become since, is the problem. Omnivore means we can eat a vast variety of things but it does not mean we SHOULD eat anything we can digest.
"Ideal" can only be traced back as far as one's ancient ancestors. Figure out your DNA and you have your ideal diet.
Jennifer
|