Are Human Animals Omnivores or Herbivores? forums


Post in Forums Create a Profile Upload Pictures Make Polls	Keep a Journal Meet Friends Have Fun It's FREE!
Sign Up!

Avoid the cold & the crowds - Buy your Christmas gifts at Amazon.com

Forum Index > News & Politics > Animal Rights

>> Are Human Animals Omnivores or Herbivores?

Search Topic

Subscription

Author

Message

Pages: << · 1 2 3

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:11:35

#31

jonnythan

Cucumber cowboy

Giant Donkey+
134455 points

100/M/The north,
Join Date: Aug 2005

jonnythan said:
I'm not entirely sure if that's true because I can't really think of many omnivores that naturally eat much flesh.

There are pigs and bears, but both of those have serious canine teeth and incisors (teeth adapted for tearing into skin and flesh) that humans lack.

Chimps do kill and eat some animals, even larger ones. They are very similar to humans in almost all anatomical and physiological ways.

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:14:20

#32

rogy

Mega Über-Meister
3110 points

52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

jonnythan said:

There are pigs and bears, but both of those have serious canine teeth and incisors (teeth adapted for tearing into skin and flesh) that humans lack.

Chimps do kill and eat some animals, even larger ones. They are very similar to humans in almost all anatomical and physiological ways.

Is it not the case with such things that the general pattern says much more than the exceptions?

rogY

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:15:18

#33

SparklyKatie

Munchkin

Ogler+
20574 points

23/F/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jan 2009

jonnythan said:

You sort of made his point for him, which is that carnivores and omnivorous animals who eat significant meat don't have mouths highly adapted for chewing.

I'm not entirely sure if that's true because I can't really think of many omnivores that naturally eat much flesh.

I got the impression he was trying to make out that we're different from all other animals of our type which simply isn't true, our anatomy is just about exactly the same as other primate omnivores

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm an agnostic Jehovah's Witness. I knock on people's doors, but I'm not sure why.

On <span style='color:#cc6633;'>47 minutes ago </span>

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:24:41

#34

jonnythan

Cucumber cowboy

Giant Donkey+
134455 points

100/M/The north,
Join Date: Aug 2005

rogy said:

Is it not the case with such things that the general pattern says much more than the exceptions?

rogY

Well the general pattern among primate omnivores seems to agree with humans being omnivores.

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:28:08

#35

chaski

Minister
13950 points

63/M/Miami, Florida
Join Date: Oct 2006

rogy said:

Have you seen the video at the start of this thread? This is the very issue being questioned.

rogY

I am fully aware what is being discussed.

From a historical and scientific perspective humans as a species eat and have eaten both plants and animals for hundreds of thousands of years. You can argue all you want. You can make comparisons all you want. You can pick you sub groups all you want.

But the historical reality is that as a species we eat BOTH animals and plants...thus the answer...not herbivore and not carnivore, but omnivore. If you don't think that humans eat both animal and plant, go to any restaurant. Or do a little reading on the human diet...check out what we have been eating since well before "biblical" times... anthropological evince that our ancestors ate stuff like Mammoths...and nuts and fruits.

You do not have to agree with me if you don't want to. I am just looking at the definition and the behavior of our species (apparently) throughout history.

you're a hypocriticizer too so stfu

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:30:47

#36

jonnythan

Cucumber cowboy

Giant Donkey+
134455 points

100/M/The north,
Join Date: Aug 2005

chaski said:

I am fully aware what is being discussed.

From a historical and scientific perspective humans as a species eat and have eaten both plants and animals for hundreds of thousands of years. You can argue all you want. You can make comparisons all you want. You can pick you sub groups all you want.

But the historical reality is that as a species we eat BOTH animals and plants...thus the answer...not herbivore and not carnivore, but omnivore. If you don't think that humans eat both animal and plant, go to any restaurant. Or do a little reading on the human diet...check out what we have been eating since well before "biblical" times... anthropological evince that our ancestors ate stuff like Mammoths...and nuts and fruits.

You do not have to agree with me if you don't want to. I am just looking at the definition and the behavior of our species (apparently) throughout history.

I think he's saying that, yes, he realizes that we do eat animals, but biologically we are MUCH closer to herbivorous animals than any 'natural' omnivores.

You seem to be arguing a different point entirely.

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:46:45

#37

rogy

Mega Über-Meister
3110 points

52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

SparklyKatie said:

I got the impression he was trying to make out that we're different from all other animals of our type which simply isn't true, our anatomy is just about exactly the same as other primate omnivores

I think a major issue here is what we think terms like "omnivore" means. It seems to be interpreted to mean something like an equal share of plant produce and flesh. This appears to make it use ideological, like the phrase "hunter-gatherer."

It seems pretty clear that our diet should be overwhelmingly made up of plant but we can tolerate small amounts of meat (the reverse of the carnivore situation).

And, of course, we have the added "burden" of being moral agents rather than moral patients like nonhuman animals.

I'm off to play footie for a hour or so now, btw, as opposed to running away from your points!!!

rogY

Oct 27, 2009 @ 20:52:42

#38

SparklyKatie

Munchkin

Ogler+
20574 points

23/F/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Jan 2009

rogy said:

I think a major issue here is what we think terms like "omnivore" means. It seems to be interpreted to mean something like an equal share of plant produce and flesh. This appears to make it use ideological, like the phrase "hunter-gatherer."

It seems pretty clear that our diet should be overwhelmingly made up of plant but we can tolerate small amounts of meat (the reverse of the carnivore situation).

And, of course, we have the added "burden" of being moral agents rather than moral patients like nonhuman animals.

I'm off to play footie for a hour or so now, btw, as opposed to running away from your points!!!

rogY

I don't see it meaning equal share at all. Two different people, one eats 1% plants and 99% meat and another eats 1% meat and 99% plants. They're both omnivores aren't they?

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm an agnostic Jehovah's Witness. I knock on people's doors, but I'm not sure why.

Edited: October 27, 2009 @ 20:53

Oct 28, 2009 @ 03:25:43

#39

magically_delicious

since 1985.

Debater+
6823 points

24/F/, California
Join Date: Oct 2007

Yes.. all he is saying is that people are closer to herbivores than carnivores, from a physical standpoint. Our bodies are designed to eat mostly plant life, and a little meat. That is all he is saying. So I don't know why everyone's going around in circles about this. I thought it was pretty clear, and I totally agree with him.

Oct 28, 2009 @ 14:49:39

#40

rogy

Mega Über-Meister
3110 points

52/M/, United Kingdom
Join Date: Dec 2007

SparklyKatie said:

I don't see it meaning equal share at all. Two different people, one eats 1% plants and 99% meat and another eats 1% meat and 99% plants. They're both omnivores aren't they?

I'm glad that you do not think of it as an equal share. Of course, in a dictionary sense, what you say is true - but I am looking more at how we orient toward such things ideologically. As I said, I think it is similar to the "hunter-gatherer" issue. We generally say "hunter-gatherer" but if we were concerned quantitatively then we would see that it would be far more accurate to say "gatherer-hunter" (some people now prefer the term "forager"

.

The fact that we prefer "hunter-gatherer" has a lot to do, I believe, in our thoughts about self and group image. We are all familiar I'm sure with cave paintings and the storybooks of a gang of (male) humans surrounding and eventually killing a mammoth. That seems to be a far more satisfying image than an alternative which emphasises gathering (and thus women's labour) and which sees the "animal" bit of our early diet as the result of scavaging or finding slugs etc.

My dictionary says of "omnivore": "feeding on a variety of food of both plant and animal origin." With this kind of definition in our heads, it seems easier for us to overemphasise the role of animal produce in the human diet.

Meat eaters are unlikely to latch onto the notion that animal produce is best taken in very small quantities and not all the time - even if there's no ethical question for the individual.

It is thoughts such as these which I think this thread serves to tease out.

rogY

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Pages: << · 1 2 3

Top