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
[–] [S] 2 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

with gorillas being considered mostly herbivore, the same can be at least considered for ancestor species.

Modern apes are still frugivores, about 20% of their diet comes from fermenting leaves, but its not a significant percentage.

It a contentious point of view, but nothing has to die in order for me to subsist when eating eggs.

I see your moral stance, but in biology carnivore is a term of art describing the source of dietary inputs it has no moral component. Humans are mono-gastrics, but not a hind-gut fermenter, the bulk of our nutrition by our but biology is going to be meat or fruit, and we can't live on fruit alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    Modern apes are still frugivores, about 20% of their diet comes from fermenting leaves, but its not a significant percentage.

    I specifically mentioned gorillas as the species is classified as predominantly herbivore, with fruits making up a very small percentage of their diet.

    If an extant species has this specific diet, it is at least plausible to conceive that ancestor species had it as well.

    Humans are mono-gastrics, but not a hind-gut fermenter, the bulk of our nutrition by our but biology is going to be meat or fruit, and we can't live on fruit alone.

    That would be the case if the species was intaking food raw, which is not the case. Cooking of food facilitates the access to nutrients in it, both for vegetable and animal source.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child)

    I specifically mentioned gorillas as the species is classified as predominantly herbivore, with fruits making up a very small percentage of their diet.

    Fair point, i hadn't realized.

    That would be the case if the species was intaking food raw, which is not the case. Cooking of food facilitates the access to nutrients in it, both for vegetable and animal source.

    Cooking seems to be orthogonal to the discussion of species classification. People are feeding cats synthetic plant based diets now, but we still classify cats as obligate carnivores based on their natural diet in their natural environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Cooking seems to be orthogonal to the discussion of species classification.

    I agree with your point but it is moot for current day. To a degree, there is a case to be made about reviewing how we classify humans as a species. Human beings have long exceeded the biological limitations imposed by evolution.

    People are feeding cats synthetic plant based diets now, but we still classify cats as obligate carnivores based on their natural diet in their natural environment.

    That is surprising by a good number of reasons. Thankfully, we've learned how to synthesize taurine but regardless I can't fathom how the critters can absorb protein and other nutrients from plant matter.

    Hurray for science, I say.

  • source
  • parent