mleku on Nostr: the answer, for all the #vegan and #carnivore fanatics is very well articulated: > To ...

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-humans-supposed-to-eat-meat#evolution

the answer, for all the #vegan and #carnivore fanatics is very well articulated:

> To survive and thrive, living beings are continuously adapting to changing conditions, habitats, and food availability.
>
> DNA evidence stretching back 300,000 years suggests that humans have been continually evolving and adapting to their environments (1Trusted Source).
>
> Thus, as humans are always responding to surrounding conditions, the logic that your body was originally designed to eat a certain food and must stick to it doesn’t stand.

no, we are omnivores, is the right answer. whether or not raising and slaughtering animals for food is moral or not, is irrelevant. when you can't find any carrots or yams to dig up and roast, the easiest thing for you to do is go after prey like rabbits and fish and other small animals, because you can cook it and eat it, and not starve to death.

the fact that you CAN eat meat, doesn't mean you SHOULD eat meat, but the same argument works equally against pure plant diets too. SHOULD is not the right word. CAN is the right word.

what is quite certain though, is that when humans, as with almost all animals whose diet is primarily meat, we suffer the same deleterious effects. we don't grow as tall, we develop chronic degenerative disease caused by the increased oxygen levels caused by the breakdown of carbohydrate *alcohols* yes, sugars are alcohols, makes it a bad idea for humans to live for an extended period solely on plants. it makes dwarfs and gypsies and retards. iodine deficiency, common in desert and dry mountain regions, also makes people retarded, and for these people, access to fish helps a lot because most of the iodine that is present anywhere in old, dry ground, is washed into the waterways.

living on a diet of exclusively animals, though? this is every day life for the inuit.

> Average life expectancy at birth for Greenland Inuit men is only 60.3 years, compared with Scotland’s 72.5. Some, but by no means all, of this discrepancy is accounted for by much higher infant mortality (26/1000) and child accident rates. Mortality from drowning in the circumpolar area is about 50/100 000 compared with 6.0/100 000 in the Western and Northern Isles of Scotland, where it is seen as a public health problem. The suicide rate among Inuits of 126/100 000 compares with 16/100 000 in Scotland, where a Health of the Nation target of 10.7/100 000 is proposed. Alcohol contributes to high rates of teenage pregnancy, and sexually transmitted disease.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1114598/

the latter part of that paragraph is quite notable for the fact that prior to contact between the europeans and the inuit, they lived exclusively on fish and water mammal meat. they clothed themselves, they made tools, they made jewellery.

considering the constant cold danger of living in basically permafrost, 60 years is a pretty substantially LONG lifespan, for hunter gatherers.

so, that sorta points at the idea that actually, there isn't an argument for the idea that wild meat is going to give you chronic disease.

eating potatoes or rice and very little meat, however, in times predating modern industrialized agriculture, however, gives you lifespans like 30-50. just the tooth damage alone from the bacteria that ferment sugars is a cause of lack of ability to eat food properly, which is a major precursor to starvation, if you don't have a way around needing to chew meat.

there is no kind of dental damage that comes from either drinking milk or eating meat. so right there, you see one of the major disadvantages of the starch based agrarian plant based diet, common especially in large settlements.

carbs give you energy, but they don't help you renew your body. plant proteins are mostly glues, and some are very harsh on the membranes of the GI tract especially the intestines.