janic wrote: So humans are not biologically omnivorous.
It is a peremptory statement, if the human was not omnivorous (ie vegan), he would not consume meat, period.
For someone who constantly recommends "science", it should be referred to rather than to cultural adaptations.
Then, once again, one should not confuse behavior with a state. (French is a rich language with many nuances necessary to avoid mixtures and confusions) As I said previously the anthropophagy practiced by certain cultures does not establish however that the human is in fact anthropophagous. Bar point!
The works of Cuvier and his successors are not applicable to humans only but to all animals. However, Cuvier's work has not been questioned (to my knowledge) by anyone among scientists (or according to what reference can be consulted?)
This may be offending your vegan ideal, but history shows - just like our eating habits since the beginnings of humanity - that homo sapiens are omnivores (with a pronounced vegetarian tendency).
It doesn't offend me at all! All points of view can be expressed, those of carnists as well as those of VG. It is therefore not a question of philosophy, but of scientific and scientifically demonstrable reality.
Then
history does not demonstrate that ... this view is disputed by non-VG scientists themselves. They recognize that certain peoples have resorted to the occasional or regular consumption of meats, which does not establish a biological state, but a deviation from it, even by necessity of survival. So humans are naturally VG with occasional consumption of meat and therefore the reverse of what you wrote (always the work of Cuvier et al.). As in our time when the use of various drugs exists, this does not establish this behavior as a priority model and its non-consumption as secondary.
Now, taking into account the fact that the human line comes from predominantly fruit-eating animals, we indeed have an easier time consuming vegetables, fruits and seeds.
As we have a philosophical divergence on the "
stem from… " : I pass !
Quote:
Any difference is paid in the short or long term in suffering and death.
We do not notice a correlation between an omnivorous diet (eg Mediterranean cuisine) and an increase in mortality, on the contrary.
Absolutely not ! To measure the incidence of a food mode, it is necessary to proceed by cohorts with as difference
a single criterion at a time. However, Mediterranean cuisine is completely different from others, such as the use of oil rather than animal fatty substances (butter and cheeses). in fact, we should compare, within the practitioners of this kitchen, a cohort with bidoche and without! What I do not know so far!
However, the Americans who carry out studies and statistics in abundance have demonstrated that not consuming meat, in groups where the only difference was this deletion, reduced diseases in general (including cancers) by about 50% (study of 1.500 American and Canadian dietitians, the AADDC already cited elsewhere) confirming that it was this consumption that differed and it alone since all things were equal elsewhere and based on a few tens of thousands of LV individuals compared to the same number not VG in this population. (more than 50.000 in each group!)
The increase of this one is caused by imbalances, of different natures ...
Inevitably, but only partially since these related imbalances were (and still are) the same in both groups. Reread this study!
COHORT: A cohort study is called a longitudinal study which is generally based on two groups of subjects (cohorts). It is notably used in medicine (mainly in epidemiology), in human and social sciences, in actuarial science and in ecology. wikipedia
Right, because a cow is an exclusively herbivorous animal,which is not the case for us...Human being.
Against truth which is based on a behavior, only, and not on anatomy and biology which are exact sciences.
To conclude, the current question is not to ask whether we should eat meat or not, but to know to what level this type of food is possible on a global level, except it is clear that it is technically almost impossible to continue with a highly meaty diet.
Indeed, the question is whether this consumption is possible with our production methods at the global level for the decades to come. A simple rule of three shows that no, but with households where the haves (money allows a lot of things) will continue, like the haves of previous centuries, to feast. but like "
you can't have your cake and eat it too"nature (or theoretically God) restores balance!
highfly-addict
In science, you have to compare comparable things! The human is a human, the monkey a monkey and despite a large number of common points, the two are as distinct as a horse and a donkey.
Now I mentioned human fossils, not monkey fossils!
When the discourse on evolution the subject has been widely examined and interrupted at the crucial moment, but if you believe it why not! To each his faith!