I know, I KNOW, we are omnivores (you, me, maybe not our llm friends, but most of us)... but that doesn't quite line up with biological necessity.

I would argue we are facilitative omnivores, but obligate carnivores. We can eat plants for efficiency (famines and whatnot), but they are not necessary for life. Meat, however, is necessary - at the very least we would have b vitamin deficiencies without meat, and babies wouldn't develop into healthy humans without it.

People will argue, and i love you all for it, that maybe this applies historically but in the modern food environment we can engineer our way out of this obligation - sure, that's true, but when speaking of our species appropriate and native diet - we would still be obligate carnivores

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

You can argue anything, but that's not what the words you're using mean, they aren't medically true, and I can only hope somebody snaps you out of your delusions before the self harm goes too far.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment