Are humans designed to be herbivores?

[fakei]

It's been a while since watching a video with doctor Milton Mills.

He presents some compelling arguments why humans were meant to have a plant diet. But above all the more time passes with a vegan diet the more it feels true.

It also makes it look farfetched the argument that humans were once scavengers or that it played an important role in human evolution.

He also gives a heads up about lab grown meat, it's not vegan nor animal friendly.

 

[Graeme M]

Interesting. I haven't watched it yet, having just woke up, but I will later. I dunno, human ancestors may have eaten mostly plants at some time or another but our physical arrangements now seem very much adapted to eating animals as well as plants. There are many adaptations that even suggest some people probably could not function as pure plant-eaters. Don't forget we only can be fully plant-based because of modern technology.

 

[Lou]

I really hate people who comment on a video that they haven't watched. And here I am going to do that same exact thing.

In my defense, I have seen this concept over and over again for like 20 years.

There was a chart that almost all vegans have been exposed to.
this one.

https://www.kevinstock.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/comp.jpg

and while googling to find that chart I've discovered that Milton Mills has taken that chart and expanded on it.

the terms Herbivore and omnifore have biological definitions. and it boils down to this - Omnivores can eat meat. No matter how plant based we get - we still can eat meat.

the only important thing is that We Can survive and thrive on a plant based diet. So I'm not so much in favor of discussion this point forever and ever. but if you haven't seen it before I will admit its an interesting POV.

I like @Graeme M's comments about evolution's roll and technology's too.

 

[Graeme M]

I really hate people who comment on a video that they haven't watched. And here I am going to do that same exact thing.

Well, I watched it. It's OK, I think he makes a few good points. But overall... not really. I guess I don't understand the need to prove we are herbivores. We aren't. So veganism is an ethical framework and we are omnivores. We just have to work out what that means in practice. One thing I thought was a bit of an own goal was that he said that baby animals consume mother's milk and get animal protein because that's useful as a stimulant to growth. Not much of an argument there for a plants only diet for babies...

 

[fakei]

Don't forget we only can be fully plant-based because of modern technology.

We have to disagree on this, there have been monastic orders both in Catholicism and Buddhism that follow vegan diets at least since the Middle Ages, but probably before that. If you read the descriptions of a vegetarian diet given by philosophers from ancient Greece, including the one attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, they don't include animal products.
My diet, BTW, does not include anything that hasn't been cooked or produced since ancient times, except vitamin B12, when I remember taking it, but the need for B12 supplémentation is already a product of modern technology, people would get it even from water in the past.

I really hate people who comment on a video that they haven't watched. And here I am going to do that same exact thing.

In my defense, I have seen this concept over and over again for like 20 years.

There was a chart that almost all vegans have been exposed to.
this one.

https://www.kevinstock.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/comp.jpg

and while googling to find that chart I've discovered that Milton Mills has taken that chart and expanded on it.

the terms Herbivore and omnifore have biological definitions. and it boils down to this - Omnivores can eat meat. No matter how plant based we get - we still can eat meat.

the only important thing is that We Can survive and thrive on a plant based diet. So I'm not so much in favor of discussion this point forever and ever. but if you haven't seen it before I will admit its an interesting POV.

I like @Graeme M's comments about evolution's roll and technology's too.

The debate is at least as old as Plutarch himself who attributed the consumption of meat to some catastrophic event mankind must have been exposed to.

There is little doubt that humans are capable of an omnivorous diet and it has been practiced from immemorial times, on the other hand, and here is where doctor Mill's arguments and personal experience enter, its consumption in particular after on loses the habit, but even before, doesn't look natural, but more the product of upbringing.

 

[fakei]

One thing I thought was a bit of an own goal was that he said that baby animals consume mother's milk and get animal protein because that's useful as a stimulant to growth. Not much of an argument there for a plants only diet for babies...

Maybe because even herbivores are breastfed.

 

[Graeme M]

Maybe because even herbivores are breastfed.

Yes, true. I just thought that the point he made - that animal protein stimulates growth (I don't know if that's true) - then it supports the idea that growing children need it. Studies have shown vegan children to be shorter than other children.

 

[Graeme M]

We have to disagree on this, there have been monastic orders both in Catholicism and Buddhism that follow vegan diets at least since the Middle Ages, but probably before that. If you read the descriptions of a vegetarian diet given by philosophers from ancient Greece, including the one attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, they don't include animal products.
My diet, BTW, does not include anything that hasn't been cooked or produced since ancient times, except vitamin B12, when I remember taking it, but the need for B12 supplémentation is already a product of modern technology, people would get it even from water in the past.

I don't believe that people can be healthy in the long term just eating any old plants. We need to get certain plants to ensure maximal health. We can do that because of modern farming methods, production and preservation and transport. Plus access to suitable supplements such as B12. It would be interesting to know how any ancients who did not eat any animals actually went in their lives.

 

[silva]

B12 would be had through water and the soil that went along with eating vegetation.

I dislike these arguments, I did listen to this and so much of what he presents as evidence was cherry picked to align with his premise.
Where were the people in the climates that don't provide vegetation year round? How they could safely pick fruit and beans long enough to provide more calories than meats.? Where veg and fruit are abundant there is plenty of competition, this was solved by farming, but prior to settling there was need to supplement. The chart showing how plants have more protein per calorie than meat is just as relevant here to show the benefits of eating meat in our evolution was as it is when showing the benefits of a plant based diet for our current culture of sedentary humans, not having the constant fight or flight adrenaline, but climate controlled, mechanized transportation, and housing
We may not have evolved as the carnivores often portrayed, but it remains that humans are in fact opportunistic omnivores.

My best argument for being plant eater is that we have evolved--not neccessarily ethically, but physiologically

Regardless---just how far do you get with this argument with meat eaters?

 

[fakei]

I don't believe that people can be healthy in the long term just eating any old plants. We need to get certain plants to ensure maximal health.

What do you mean by "any old plant"?

And which are those "certain plants" that allegedly people didn't have?

We can do that because of modern farming methods, production and preservation and transport.

Egypt was the granary of the Roman empire and on the Portuguese and Spanish coasts a fish based sauce was produced that was sold in Rome, people have been capable of transporting products long distance for some thousands of years now.

Plus access to suitable supplements such as B12. It would be interesting to know how any ancients who did not eat any animals actually went in their lives.

The majority of people in Antiquity and Medieval times did not consume meat on a regular basis, even in modern times in rural areas people only had meat on Sunday and most meals were vegan.

Apollonius of Tyana lived till his 80's, Porphyry and Proclus till their 70s, same for Musonius Rufus who despite of being a Stoic was vegetarian, he considered the diet of working slaves the healthiest, which I suspect was not exactly high on animal products.

Most Neoplatonists and Neopythagoreans were vegetarians, they usually lived to relative old ages.


I've known a person who stayed with a a Catholic monastic order. From her description the diet was vegan, she told me they added a small amount of nuts, they could have a dispensation if there were health problems but she told me there was usually no problem.

 

[fakei]

We tend to forget that human diet in agricultural societies was so much closer to veganism/vegetarianism than today that they didn't have to give up that much and they already knew how to eat plant based.

 

[g0rph]

His knowledge of lab grown meat is non-existent.

There will of course be a necessity to obtain a biopsy from an animal.

But then these cells can then be used indefinitely.
"The cells that are used are non-GMO and immortalised meaning they can divide and produce meat indefinitely in contrary to continuous animal slaughter."
Long-term, there is no reason they can not be considered vegan.

And his comparison to a kidney is really dumb.
We can already buy 3D printed plant-based meat that looks and feels just like animal flesh. They can already make a pretty much identical product from lab-grown cells to a piece of chicken.

Comparing to an organ that is evolutionary-wise, extremely complicated, when we are simply talking about making a muscle analogue makes zero sense.
Of course copying a kidney would be more difficult....so what? That is not the objective.

Short-term, once more widely available, it should replace ground meat. Long-term you will be able to buy a steak that is grown, rather than taken from a cow.

And whatever he says, we are capable of living predominantly on meat as well as plants. i.e. Omnivorous.
I find the whole argument fairly pointless.

People like the taste and feel of meat. Trying to promote a whole-food plant based diet will not reduce the suffering that a switch to bio-meat might.

A

 

[fakei]

His knowledge of lab grown meat is non-existent.

There will of course be a necessity to obtain a biopsy from an animal.

But then these cells can then be used indefinitely.
"The cells that are used are non-GMO and immortalised meaning they can divide and produce meat indefinitely in contrary to continuous animal slaughter."
Long-term, there is no reason they can not be considered vegan.

And his comparison to a kidney is really dumb.
We can already buy 3D printed plant-based meat that looks and feels just like animal flesh. They can already make a pretty much identical product from lab-grown cells to a piece of chicken.

Comparing to an organ that is evolutionary-wise, extremely complicated, when we are simply talking about making a muscle analogue makes zero sense.
Of course copying a kidney would be more difficult....so what? That is not the objective.

Short-term, once more widely available, it should replace ground meat. Long-term you will be able to buy a steak that is grown, rather than taken from a cow.

And whatever he says, we are capable of living predominantly on meat as well as plants. i.e. Omnivorous.
I find the whole argument fairly pointless.

People like the taste and feel of meat. Trying to promote a whole-food plant based diet will not reduce the suffering that a switch to bio-meat might.

A

The article below seems to disagree with you on it being vegan although it agrees on the benefits:

Should it be labelled ‘vegan’? No, cultured meat isn’t vegan and its development has hardly been cruelty-free; the process of obtaining FBS is clearly repugnant. Yet, we need the human race to stop ravaging our world. Viva! hopes that, as people’s hearts and minds are changed, the growth of vegan foods and cultured meats will work in parallel, and the horrors of factory farming and slaughter will end.

Lab Meat

What is the potential of lab-grown meat for saving animals and the planet, and what are the ethical concerns?

viva.org.uk

 

[fakei]

The word vegan comes from vegetarian, and eating meat is not vegetarian, that much I think we can all agree without much effort. Whether or not it can be called vegan depends on what exactly the word came to mean.

 

[fakei]

Where were the people in the climates that don't provide vegetation year round? How they could safely pick fruit and beans long enough to provide more calories than meats.?

The fact that people survived on those diets doesn't mean they are ideal, even to those that adapted, there's a lecture of doctor MacDougall on this issue.

 

[silva]

The fact that people survived on those diets doesn't mean they are ideal, even to those that adapted, there's a lecture of doctor MacDougall on this issue.

They're one example--and proves that we are not herbivores!
We can choose our diet-because we're omnivore

 

[g0rph]

The word vegan comes from vegetarian, and eating meat is not vegetarian, that much I think we can all agree without much effort. Whether or not it can be called vegan depends on what exactly the word came to mean.

It doesn't really matter what it says.
if eating lab grown meat that is from cells that are not sourced from animals then it will be vegan by the very definition of vegan

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Remember. Vegetarianism is a diet that excludes meat but still includes foods that are an integral part of the meat industry and/or exploit animals for taste pleasure.
Veganism is a philosophy that is concerned with animal welfare/rights.

In the end, "meat" is simply a collection of molecules of various types. If we can reconstruct that without the exploitation of animals it is undoubtedly vegan.

And if I am lucky enough to be around when it becomes widely available, then I'll be trying it myself for sure.

I didn't give up my Friday rib-eye steak with gravy and potato because I didn't like it, because believe me I dreamt about it for months after I stopped. I gave it up for ethical reasons.
They give that back to me without the need to exploit animals...I am all in.

 

[fakei]

It doesn't really matter what it says.
if eating lab grown meat that is from cells that are not sourced from animals then it will be vegan by the very definition of vegan

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

Putting the definition against the article it raises doubts, since the cells still come from animals and the medium in which they grow.

Remember. Vegetarianism is a diet that excludes meat but still includes foods that are an integral part of the meat industry and/or exploit animals for taste pleasure.Veganism is a philosophy that is concerned with animal welfare/rights.

Vegetarianism is often short for ovolactovegetarianism or any of the possible combinations and strict vegetarians may simply adopt the designation vegan diet because it is shorter. But there can be many different beliefs under that umbrella term. We agree, anyway, that the designation vegetarian will remain unaffected.

Regarding the ethical issues that is not necessarily the case, vegetarianism in Indian religions and philosophies is also for ethical reasons concerning the well being of animals, they do a different reading of things.

There are people who are animal rights activists whose diets probably fall in the flexitarian category and who do it for ethical reasons, they are simply not able to take it that far.

 

[shyvas]

There are people who are animal rights activists whose diets probably fall in the flexitarian category and who do it for ethical reasons, they are simply not able to take it that far.

I'm a member of many AR's group who do activism and we are all vegan. However, I'm also a member of a few wildlife rescue group and most of them are omnis.

 

[Brian W]

The thread title is concerned with whether or not we are designed to be herbivores and not whether or not we are herbivores. I think that is an important distinction and do we define according to what we are capable of eating or according to what is the most suitable diet for us. We also need to take into account how we have evolved since the onset of technology and maybe what we would have been naturally is not what we are now. Designed seems to be the question though, so I would say yes, we are designed to be herbivores (as in optimum diet) but also to be adaptable.