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] 1 point 1 hour ago

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