debunking false vegan propaganda

[Volenta]

Humans are herbivores
We are omnivores, and it doesn't matter one bit for veganism. It just makes us look stupid regarding biology. If the discussion is going on about our anatomy and things like that, you have wasted time in which you could have explained the necessity of veganism. The bottom line is that we can live without animal products, and it's even healthier to do so.

[EquALLity]

Yeah.^
I think we should change the 'Stupid Things Omnivores Say' topic to 'Stupid Things Meat-Eaters Say.'

[Volenta]

Yeah.^
I think we should change the 'Stupid Things Omnivores Say' topic to 'Stupid Things Meat-Eaters Say.'

Right. The words omnivore, carnivore and herbivore are talking about biological traits; which food an animal is able to derive energy from. Vegetarianism or 'meat eater' (there is not really a good word for it) is about diet; what you choose to eat to get your energy from. Veganism is also that, but extends beyond diet to include abstaining from other practices as well. I think it's important to get these facts straight as vegans.

[Jebus]

Is it not true that humans have anatomical traits more similar to herbivores than to omnivores? If not, please provide examples. I am interested as this was the main argument of the high profile vegetarian who convinced me to stop eating meat many years ago.

[brimstoneSalad]

Is it not true that humans have anatomical traits more similar to herbivores than to omnivores? If not, please provide examples. I am interested as this was the main argument of the high profile vegetarian who convinced me to stop eating meat many years ago.

The moral, environmental, and health arguments are the most credible, because it doesn't matter what we're classified as. Something being natural doesn't make it right (e.g. the 'natural' function of the penis is rape- it's also the predominant form of reproduction for many of our closest relatives).

Nature can be pretty nasty.

That said, classifying an organism as carnivore, omnivore, or herbivore is rather arbitrary. The only cases when it's non-arbitrary is when an animal is literally incapable of digesting something, or absolutely requires it to survive; and that's very uncommon.

Animals most people would consider herbivores can and do sometimes consume some meat, and not just when they're starving. Deer of various kinds are well known to eat carrion or small animals; they just don't usually hunt. Cows in some areas are fed a diet consisting partially of meat, particularly bits of other farmed animals that humans didn't want to eat (including other cows).

[Jebus]

Animals most people would consider herbivores can and do sometimes consume some meat

[/quote]

True, but that wouldn't change the fact that they are primarily herbivore. If humans have the same anatomical traits as these (primarily herbivores) would it be wrong to say that humans are primarily herbivores?

[miniboes]

True, but that wouldn't change the fact that they are primarily herbivore. If humans have the same anatomical traits as these (primarily herbivores) would it be wrong to say that humans are primarily herbivores?

Well, fact is that we can extract nutrients we need and survive decently on meat, that pretty much makes us omnivores. It is quite fair to say that if diet were a black-and-white classification rather than a spectrum, so the only choices are carnivorous and herbivorous, we would be considered herbivores.

[brimstoneSalad]

Miniboes has part of it, but even in both of those cases, there's an arbitrary line to be drawn.

True, but that wouldn't change the fact that they are primarily herbivore.

When do you decide that a diet is primarily herbivorous? Less than 50% meat by volume? Less than 50% by calories? Less than 10% by either? Less than 1%

In any case, you're drawing arbitrary lines.

If humans have the same anatomical traits as these (primarily herbivores) would it be wrong to say that humans are primarily herbivores?

It's not wrong exactly, but it's also not right.

Maybe we got 90%+ of our calories from plants (at various stages in history, there were points where we ate very little meat, and others where we ate perhaps mostly meat), but most people would still consider that to be omnivorous. Even at 1% meat, a lot of people would.

The problem with words is that they have to follow common usage, or have a very good reason not to. Arbitrary cutoffs aren't such a good reason.

If you wanted to put it to rest, I think you'd have to do two things:

1. Determine the historical human diet to a better degree than we can now

2. Poll some Zoologists and Wildlife biologists to find out where they arbitrary cutoff really is, so you can compare it.


If the argument for veganism rests on an element of petty semantics, we'd be in trouble. Luckily, it's entirely irrelevant what we did eat, or how biologists want to classify us in the wild. We're not in the wild, and what's natural has nothing to do with what's right, or even what's healthy for us in our new environment.


EDIT:

It is quite fair to say that if diet were a black-and-white classification rather than a spectrum, so the only choices are carnivorous and herbivorous, we would be considered herbivores.

Yes, that sounds very likely.

[Jebus]

Thank you miniboes and brimstonesalad for your good points. The vegetarian who converted me writes in his books that although most animals can survive on a diet that is distant from that animal's position on the herbivore-carnivore spectrum, this non optimal diet has the potential of leading to illnesses. He writes that this as the reason human beings have more illnesses than any other animal.

[brimstoneSalad]

The vegetarian who converted me writes in his books that although most animals can survive on a diet that is distant from that animal's position on the herbivore-carnivore spectrum, this non optimal diet has the potential of leading to illnesses. He writes that this as the reason human beings have more illnesses than any other animal.

That's not true. The 'natural' diet is not the optimal diet for long term health, which is not a natural state (the 'natural' state is dying after you reproduce).
Animals traditionally considered carnivores, and who in the wild eat mostly meat, can also benefit in longevity and general health in old-age from a vegetarian diet which provides the appropriate nutrients. Dogs are a good example (although they have had a long time with humans to adapt).

Humans don't have more illnesses than other animals. They live longer with a faster metabolism (which is a more appropriate measurement of age than time alone) to experience them,