2boar2sow,
Here's a good article summarizing what is currently known about the effects of diet on human evolution:
(broken link removed)
We did in fact, start out that way - as vegetarians - and as we evolved we began to scavage for meat and then hunt meat. The increase of calorie-rich food as well as the necessity to learn new skills to hunt catalyzed our evolution into large brained, tool-using, group-living creatures with a language.
However, this doesn't mean that people should not be vegetarians if they wish too and can thrive on that diet. It just means that it may not be particularly 'natural' or sustaining for all people.
There is a very interesting theory put forth by Dr. Peter Adamo that different blood type groups thrive on different diets. He tracks the evolution of humans and compares the natural diet of people during the stage any particular blood group evolved. (Blood type and diet was determined through testing of teeth, bone, remains, artifacts, etc.)
For example, the earliest humans were all of the blood group 'O'. They were hunter/gatherers, chasing meat and living off of aboveground plants and fruits. As humans migrated towards Asia and developed an agricultural lifestyle, the blood group 'A' evolved. Then some of these humans migrated towards Europe and became nomadic, and the 'B' blood group evolved, and then the AB Group.
The theory states (and he seems to back it up with laboratory evidence), that humans of different blood types should be eating foods natural to that particular step in evolution. For example, I am an 'O' blood type (common as dirt) and am best off eating a "hunter/gatherer" diet. This doesn't actually preclude vegetaranism, though it does preclude veganism. Anything that could be scrounged and eaten without processing or long-term time investment by our neolithic ancestors should be wholesome for me, including meat, eggs, nuts, fruits, vegetables, small amounts of tubers, etc. There is a whole list in his material. Foods that require cultivation or multi-step processing (i.e. more than just cooking) are not healthy for 'O' types. Animal products that require cultivation should not be eaten by 'O' types (like pigs, milk, etc.)
On the other hand, 'A' blood types do best on agricultural diets like grains, legumes, more tubers, etc., and if they eat meat 'domesticated' animal products such as chickens and pigs, milk and cheese.
'B' group does best on small game animals and retains the ability to eat grains and legumes.
I'm not promoting this theory, but I do find it very interesting.
What I mean by natural is that humans have been, for many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years, part of the predator class of animals. We have evolved to eat meat. Animals do not eat things naturally that will not sustain them. Rabbits don't make a moral choice to eat only vegetables - they cannot eat meat. It does not tempt them or signal anything in their brain that causes them to start feeding. Same with cats, almost strict carnivores - although they will play with a grape, nothing about a grape signals them to chow down.
Many humans are signaled strongly to eat when presented with meat. It is natural for those humans to eat it. NOT eating meat can be a moral victory over our animal nature. It is to be respected and honored. This mastery over our nature is what makes humans so interesting. Much like nuns and monks who do not indulge in sex. Sex and reproduction is natural behavior for all living creatures. It is a moral victory for them to not to sucumb to the temptation. It is a celebration of and an exercise towards true spirit and divinity. It is a good thing - a desire to be more noble than our origins.
However, lay people are not required to be celibate, though spiritual lay people may try to be moderate with sexual behavior and be respectful and thankful of it and their partner and recognize it's power over them and the power of mother nature's imperative to reproduce. They do not abuse it, but revere it's power and be thankful for it's part in our happiness and fulfillment.
It's the same way I feel about eating meat - to be respectful and aware of power of nature and it's control over us. To be respectful and thankful for the animals that feed us - and the part that they play in our health and survival. And to care for them - to allow them full lives in nature while they are alive. To pay them back for it - to care for their offspring, to protect them from other predators, to feed them and shelter them. Not to over indulge or do it recklessly and thoughtless, painfully and greedily. And yes - sometimes we feel the need to have control over nature. It's a personal choice and a moral decision. But not entirely a sentence to hell to fill one's place in nature - thoughtfully, mindfully, and with gratitude.
Both are valid viewpoints. Both are valid lifestyles. Human beings are complicated.
As being part of nature - I mean this - humans have been predators for many hundreds of thousands of years. We have as natural a part and place in the ecology of the world as do the wolves and the dogs that hunt and to think otherwise is arrogant. To think we are "above" nature or outside of it and to take the role of masters of nature is arrogant. Although our better nature may inspire us to be masters of our baser nature, to deny that we are part and parcel of the worlds ecology is the kind of dangerous thinking that makes humans think that as creatures above the design, we can take and do and kill and exploit any damn thing we want. Thinking we are "God's chosen species" has led to the extinction of more animals than eating them ever did.
Those of us who try to be spiritual or moral need to be respectful of nature's powerful hold over us. When you take a predator out of an ecology can be as devasting to that ecology as taking prey out of an ecology, or an important scavanger. What will happen to the ecology if vegetarianism becomes the world-wide standard? What prey animals will overproduce as a result? What plant species will become devastated when the prey animal population explodes? Will we then, as vegetarians, have to compete with other herbivores for plant food? Would we then just kill them off through competition (after all we have tools and are more adaptable) just as easily as if we killed them for food? Would we not destroy just as many of our fellow creatures by destroying their habitats by the need to increase farm lands?
It's a lovely ideal not to kill and eat other creatures - a moral victory. Please remember though that killing and eating other creatures is what allowed us to develop into the kind of animals that can make moral decisions in the first place.
I do have to say that the most intelligent piece of perspective I've ever heard on animal-rights activists was by Dennis Miller:
"When did minks become more important than people? I've watched individuals in New York City step over fellow human beings laying in their own piss to spit on somebody who's wearing chinchilla."
And I reiterate my original statement - human beings need to be more respectful and compassionate to ALL living beings - those that are eaten, those that hunt, and yes - even other human beings - and acknowledge and respect each living beings place and purpose in the world. There are no easy answers, except that moderation and mindfulness is the only way to find any of them.
Just my thoughts.
Fawn
