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 facultative 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
[–] 3 points 4 hours ago

The wild grains would have been very different from today's, though, and the plants would have been too.

Yes, for most of them. Today's carrots are very different from the original crops, as an easy example. Even the predominant colour wasn't as such until a couple of centuries ago.

Far less appetizing, I'd imagine.

Can we agree that is at best very subjective to answer?

It doesn't require much effort to find everyday food items that have changed wildly in its palatability over the course of one or two generations. Not processed foods; basic food items.

There is carbon/nitrogen isotope testing that shows that our distant predecessors also subsisted off roots and tubers.

And we still do. Our ancestors got that right. Potatoes, kassava and taro are good examples of that.

  • source
  • parent