[jononomo]

Homo Sapiens have been on Earth in their current form for 200,000 years, and for 95% of that time (until agriculture emerged 10,000 years ago), they were primarily hunters, meaning they ate meat primarily.

From an economist's perspective, the return on hunting is something like 50x the return on gathering because of the huge number of calories one can acquire by killing a large fatty animal. I.e., six hours of hunting will yield you 50x the calories you could acquire from six hours of gathering. Competing with monkeys and parrots for fruit doesn't make sense when you could kill an antelope instead. (See the work of Miki Ben-Dor for more on this).

And it turns out that if you only eat meat, you develop a stronger, wider, and more attractive jaw, your wisdom teeth come in properly, you never develop cavities, and you have good gum health.

I avoided all plant-based calories in 2021, and when I went to the dentist for a cleaning, she specifically commented on my unusually good oral hygiene and gum health. Plants really aren't good for our bodies, including our gums and teeth.

Today we think of grains, fruits, and vegetables as being less expensive than fresh meat, but that is an artifact of technology and industrial farming -- it does not reflect the natural state of man.

[taffit]

Sorry, but this is just not true. Meat was only a small part of the eating of our ancestors, as it still is for most tribal people. They hadn't an AK to shot at animals. So they spent more days without meat, depending on their luck at hunting.

[losteric]

Hunters and gatherers*

The hunting myth is in vogue, but one can make equally handwaved arguments for gathering as the obvious choice.

Plants never move, they have regular seasons, they never fight back, our gut bacteria are symbiotic with digesting plant matter, and it's way easier to chase away competition herbivores than actively hunting them. Since our roots are primates, hunting likely evolved from killing competing herbivores and eating them out of desperation during poor crop years.

Hunting is a risky exercise with variable returns by season. It requires far more knowledge and skill to succeed at.

[jononomo]

Here are some things to consider about plants in light of your arguments:

1. 99% of all plants on Earth are toxic to human beings -- this is in comparison to 99% of all animals on Earth being safe for human beings to eat (including venomous snakes).

2. The fact that plants cannot move means that they fight off predators with toxins and chemicals. They contain natural pesticides, for instance. The only part of the plant that it wants to have eaten is the fruit. The seeds, on the other hand, are particularly well-defended. Plants contain lectins, oxalates, tannins, glucosinolates, and the list goes on and on. Animals don't fight back once they are dead, but plants do. (This is why 99% of plants are toxic to humans).

3. Plants have regular seasons, as you mentioned -- which is why plants are not available to be eaten through the winter in many parts of the world. Somehow our ancestors not only survived winters but also ice ages. Animals, on the other hand, exist year-round.

4. Hunting is not necessarily a risky exercise -- the largest animals, which provide the most calories, do not tend to run. Animals like Elephants, Rhinos, Hippos, etc., will turn and face a predator. They also have predictable paths to watering holes and can easily be captured by digging a hole in the ground and covering it with leaves.

You've made a good attempt at coming up with arguments, but I'm afraid the weight of the evidence argues in favor of our ancestors consuming mostly animals. In fact, the acidity of our stomachs is extremely high, in line with vultures, and is what we would expect to find in "hyper carnivores". You can read more about these findings here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/israeli-study-h...

[losteric]

I've gone as deep as two years full carnivore. The literature and pseudoscience is quite familiar.

> Here are some things to consider about plants in light of your arguments:

That was a critique, not an argument. I was trying to show handwaving without reputable citations is not an argument at all. It's just a narrative based on assumptions, unverified trust. You cite Times Of Israel, I could point to vegan/omnivore articles in HuffPo or Buzzfeed. Neither would have substance. Here is an example of an argument: https://biology.stackexchange.com/a/55977

(For the record I am back to omnivore).

[jononomo]

Honestly it just sounds like you don’t have any response to my points.

[soperj]

> Homo Sapiens have been on Earth in their current form for 200,000 years, and for 95% of that time (until agriculture emerged 10,000 years ago), they were primarily hunters, meaning they ate meat primarily.

Hunters and Gatherers. Likely gathered a whole hell of a lot of not meat as well.

[jononomo]

Would you spend $500 at the grocery store to buy 3000 calories worth of fruits and vegetables if you could instead spend $10 to buy 3000 calories worth of steak? Consider the fact that fruits and vegetables contain fiber, which human beings cannot digest, whereas steak does not.

[soperj]

There are close to 1800 calories in a 5 pound bag of potatoes vs 700 calories in a 10 oz steak. Pretty sure your dollar amounts there are vastly different from what is found at the grocery store.

[jononomo]

Ancient human beings didn't have grocery stores, though. We're talking about what ancient human beings would have thought about the price of hunting vs. the price of gathering, not what modern humans find at a grocery store. Killing one wooly mammoth would have generated enough calories to feed an entire tribe for months.

[soperj]

I'm literally responding to your post about grocery prices.

[jononomo]

Can you try to explain your point at some greater length, perhaps?

My point is that when viewed through the lens of economics, meat was a vastly less expensive way for ancient human beings to obtain calories than plants were.

The situation for ancient human beings would be equivalent to a situation today (for modern human beings) in which 3000 calories of fruits and vegetables would cost $500, whereas 3000 calories of steak would cost $10.

[dennis_jeeves1]

Great summary.

(which most people will find unbelievable, not me though. Read meat has been my main food for a decade)