• MilitantVegan@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    And going back to your main point, it’s really just dubious to draw conclusions about what we are “meant” to eat based on the shape of our teeth. If all we’re considering is health and history, it’s not entirely accurate to say we’re just omnivores. It’s more like we are predominantly herbivores with some capacity for opportunistic omnivory in emergencies, but our ability to live on animal foods is rudimentary at best and comes at a high health cost. Also consider that from a Paleolithic standpoint, early humans would have been eating much more bugs as their protein, as that would have been far more abundant and easily gathered. Hunting is unreliable, and in most circumstances would have been a luxury at best (the book “Edible” goes into this).

    Of course we also are becoming more intelligent, and have emerged the capacity for moral evolution. The paleo concept as a whole is ultimately just the argument from tradition fallacy. We can do better.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs&pp=ygUhcGFsZW9udG9sb2dpc3QgZGVidW5rcyBwYWxlbyBkaWV0

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      The paleo argument is about matching the environment of evolutionary adaptedness in diet, not tradition.

      People seem to forget that human evolution started 3 billion years ago so our evolutionarily-adapted diet isn’t just “paleo”