Fun fact, we evolved to eat raw meat, that’s why we have an appendix. Then, when we stopped eating raw meat, we started to evolve away from the appendix.
Evolutionary arguments don’t support the naturalist fallacy, because evolution doesn’t work like that. It responds to environmental pressures. It’s not some guiding light for what we’re “meant” to be doing, it’s the tools we’ve got to support what we already did.
For our ancestors, the appendix most likely evolved to help them digest a diet rich in raw vegetables and cellulose, as it still does in many herbivorous mammals. Thousands of years ago it would have functioned as an extension of the cecum, involved in the bacterial digestion of fibrous plant materials.
That is not proven though, the appendix part, that’s the explanation I like the best as well. Other explanations, I forget, the aliens had it for some shit we don’t even know about, oh yeah, the more likely non joke one, and it could be what you say and this both many organs do multiple things, is to provide a reservoir of gut bacteria, to repopulate the gut after the system is flushed. That would go right along with digesting raw meat, as using independent bacteria is large part of the human body we’ve come to learn.
I forget what the other theories are, but there are others for the appendix, I believe the raw meat and reservoir of bacteria both though is most likely.
While still technically a theory, the appendix acting as a reservoir for healthy gut bacteria has largely been proven. That function could very well have helped with digestion of raw meat as well, especially if eating raw meats caused issues with diarrhea.
I want my money back
That wasn’t fun
The bricks and the gravel and the mud and the blood
Another wild teenager in search of success, welcome to the jewel of the modified west
It’s probably got more to do with eating less rotten meat than eating less raw meat. It has functions for the immune system it is like the surveillance system for what is being introduced to the body.
What a curious phrase. Not just for the substitution of vegetarian for vegan, but for the use of “more”. More vegan. I thought it was binary. Are there partial vegans? I thought that wasn’t allowed.
Because my diet includes more calories and nutrition from plant matter than meat most days, am I more vegan now?
"International research explains that flexitarianism is used as a broader term to describe partial reductions in meat consumption without fixed requirements.[7]"
Its more fun to highlight that veganism is about ethics so its not dietary its about ethical consumption of animal products. Which humans are animals.
And you could be a carnivore vegan - all you’d have to do is find volunteer meat to eat, so you’d need to be a cannibal or find that talking cow from the Douglas Adams books.
Outside of mother’s milk our ape ancestors weren’t getting any dairy though. Maybe the last 10k, even longer, years. Not the last 100k, to say nothing of the last 10 million.
You are right it is a newer adaptation, but one that was clearly advantageous to our species. There are not many evolutionary changes that occurred independently in 3-5 different populations.
There’s no evidence to support that. Best evidence is that our ancestors for the longest time were likely opportunistic omnivores. Plants of course were a large part of the diet, but looking back to about 3.9 mya meat was on the menu.
They overwhelmingly ate more plants than meat we can safely presume. Meat they could get would be mostly insects, and an already dead or sick animals. Later when they came out of the trees shellfish.
Yes scavenging for meat is generally considered a very important part of human evolution. Our stomachs are particularly acidic when compared to other great apes. This is believed to have evolved due to a high consumption of scavenged meats.
You are right though plants generally did form a large portion of our and our ancestors diets.
Important to note that as our brain size increased it did correlate with increased meat consumption as well. This all goes into calorie densities, available nutrients, and evolutionary pressures.
Evolution is on a long scale, we have a lot longer as vegans than we do eating any meat to speak of outside insects and scavenging. Only a blink of an eye hunting our own meat to a large extent, a small fraction of a million years, compared to millions, and tens of millions, vegan ish.
Longer when you include like passive meat eating, like shellfish, which is what people were thought to be following as they colonized the middle east and asia.
if your argument is that we were herbivores longer than omnivores I’ve got some news for you. we ate planktons for alot longer than plants, mostly because plants didn’t even exist for millions of years.
so by your logic we should be eating phytoplanktons instead of plants and animals.
you can’t just dismiss millions of years of evolution on a whim based entirely on an emotional reaction.
be vegan all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are an omnivore.
We, humans, have only existed for around 200,000 years, you are referring to multiple different species that are explicitly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens that all had different organic needs and requirements than what we require. This stance really does not hold any kind of scientific relevance to the human diet. We are inarguably evolved, as humans, to be omnivores, and arguably obligate omnivores if you’re trying to be scientific about it.
Veganism is a choice based on modern subjective morality, there is no objective or scientific explanation or reason for humans to be vegan. It’s a choice, plain and simple, and it does not make you better or worse than anyone else.
Vegans don’t want to force anything on anyone. What we want to do is to persuade people to change their minds. I believe wholeheartedly that veganism as a majority position is inevitable. In the past, the idea that black women would be allowed to vote was more unthinkable than majority veganism is now. History trends towards progressivism.
The majority of studies, and especially the higher quality studies, showed that those who avoided meat consumption had significantly higher rates or risk of depression, anxiety, and/or self-harm behaviors. There was mixed evidence for temporal relations, but study designs and a lack of rigor precluded inferences of causal relations. Our study does not support meat avoidance as a strategy to benefit psychological health.
It means this metastudy is less of a study and more of an advertisement. The outcome of a metastudy depends even more on who does it, especially if they make up the criteria for which research is “good” enough to include.
I think people on the left as whole would be more prone to depression and anxiety too. People who care about the world are generally more concious, more self-aware and critical, which turn into more worrying and at the extreme, anxiety.
(or crazy people are more often on vegan diet, dealer’s choice).
Mmm, no, there is a right answer and it’s this one. Well, it’s this one with more inclusive language. Like “People who have experienced more hardship with psychological consequences are more likely to avoid consumption of animal products”.
Veganism is unnatural because we’re all omnivores, and evolved eating both plants and animals.
Impregnating cows this way is also unnatural.
Both can be true.
Fun fact, we evolved to eat raw meat, that’s why we have an appendix. Then, when we stopped eating raw meat, we started to evolve away from the appendix.
Evolutionary arguments don’t support the naturalist fallacy, because evolution doesn’t work like that. It responds to environmental pressures. It’s not some guiding light for what we’re “meant” to be doing, it’s the tools we’ve got to support what we already did.
This article says it was for raw vegetables:
That is not proven though, the appendix part, that’s the explanation I like the best as well. Other explanations, I forget, the aliens had it for some shit we don’t even know about, oh yeah, the more likely non joke one, and it could be what you say and this both many organs do multiple things, is to provide a reservoir of gut bacteria, to repopulate the gut after the system is flushed. That would go right along with digesting raw meat, as using independent bacteria is large part of the human body we’ve come to learn.
I forget what the other theories are, but there are others for the appendix, I believe the raw meat and reservoir of bacteria both though is most likely.
While still technically a theory, the appendix acting as a reservoir for healthy gut bacteria has largely been proven. That function could very well have helped with digestion of raw meat as well, especially if eating raw meats caused issues with diarrhea.
To quote Meatloaf: 🎵🎶 IIIIIIIIIIII WANT MY
MONEYAPPENDIX BACK!🎶🎵I want my money back
That wasn’t fun
The bricks and the gravel and the mud and the blood
Another wild teenager in search of success, welcome to the jewel of the modified west
Look. If you want it to scan, it’s got to be "‘ppendix’, otherwise there’s an extra syllable there. :)
It’s probably got more to do with eating less rotten meat than eating less raw meat. It has functions for the immune system it is like the surveillance system for what is being introduced to the body.
Our monkey, or rather ape, ancestors were more vegan than meat eater.
Today, most people are “more vegan” than meat eater, too, as in they eat more grains and vegetables than meat. If that’s what you meant.
What a curious phrase. Not just for the substitution of vegetarian for vegan, but for the use of “more”. More vegan. I thought it was binary. Are there partial vegans? I thought that wasn’t allowed.
Because my diet includes more calories and nutrition from plant matter than meat most days, am I more vegan now?
You may already be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarianism
"International research explains that flexitarianism is used as a broader term to describe partial reductions in meat consumption without fixed requirements.[7]"
Sorry, you’re too late. I now identify as More Vegan. ;)
Its more fun to highlight that veganism is about ethics so its not dietary its about ethical consumption of animal products. Which humans are animals.
And you could be a carnivore vegan - all you’d have to do is find volunteer meat to eat, so you’d need to be a cannibal or find that talking cow from the Douglas Adams books.
And I’m sorry but why add the fucking picture I don’t get how that is applicable to anything
I was going to add a picture of Epstein and his super pals from a mural in sydney but I don’t even see how to do that.
The picture is of “the vegan police” from Scott pilgrim vs the world (2010)
In prehistory the are not eating dairy, but may eat dead animals, insects, shellfish, etc.
So not all vegan, but moreso than not.
Humans evolved to proccess dairy, not once, not twice, but 3 times. Some studies even suggest up to 5 times.
Seems like it was definitely advantageous to consume dairy
Outside of mother’s milk our ape ancestors weren’t getting any dairy though. Maybe the last 10k, even longer, years. Not the last 100k, to say nothing of the last 10 million.
You are right it is a newer adaptation, but one that was clearly advantageous to our species. There are not many evolutionary changes that occurred independently in 3-5 different populations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3048992/#%3A~%3Atext=Lactase+is+the+enzyme+responsible%2Ctrait+known+as+lactase+persistence.
Crabs have entered the chat
That’s literally not in any way shape or form veganism. That’s omnivorous, no ifs ands or buts about it.
There’s no evidence to support that. Best evidence is that our ancestors for the longest time were likely opportunistic omnivores. Plants of course were a large part of the diet, but looking back to about 3.9 mya meat was on the menu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
They overwhelmingly ate more plants than meat we can safely presume. Meat they could get would be mostly insects, and an already dead or sick animals. Later when they came out of the trees shellfish.
Yes scavenging for meat is generally considered a very important part of human evolution. Our stomachs are particularly acidic when compared to other great apes. This is believed to have evolved due to a high consumption of scavenged meats.
You are right though plants generally did form a large portion of our and our ancestors diets.
Important to note that as our brain size increased it did correlate with increased meat consumption as well. This all goes into calorie densities, available nutrients, and evolutionary pressures.
that’s like comparing us to the primordial plankton that use to eat microbes.
it’s just really stupid.
let’s ignore 25 million years of evolution.
Pandas would like to have a word wich yu
Evolution is on a long scale, we have a lot longer as vegans than we do eating any meat to speak of outside insects and scavenging. Only a blink of an eye hunting our own meat to a large extent, a small fraction of a million years, compared to millions, and tens of millions, vegan ish.
Longer when you include like passive meat eating, like shellfish, which is what people were thought to be following as they colonized the middle east and asia.
“outside insects and scavenging”
So, scavenger and omnivore… never vegan
I guess you are right.
Holy shit, that has never happened.
Thanks buddy! I’M A MASTER DEBATER
if your argument is that we were herbivores longer than omnivores I’ve got some news for you. we ate planktons for alot longer than plants, mostly because plants didn’t even exist for millions of years.
so by your logic we should be eating phytoplanktons instead of plants and animals.
you can’t just dismiss millions of years of evolution on a whim based entirely on an emotional reaction.
be vegan all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are an omnivore.
Not millions though, tens of thousands eating meat, millions eating mostly vegan. I’m not a vegan btw don’t have a dog in this fight.
“mostly vegan” meaning “omnivore”.
We, humans, have only existed for around 200,000 years, you are referring to multiple different species that are explicitly not Homo Sapiens Sapiens that all had different organic needs and requirements than what we require. This stance really does not hold any kind of scientific relevance to the human diet. We are inarguably evolved, as humans, to be omnivores, and arguably obligate omnivores if you’re trying to be scientific about it.
Veganism is a choice based on modern subjective morality, there is no objective or scientific explanation or reason for humans to be vegan. It’s a choice, plain and simple, and it does not make you better or worse than anyone else.
A guy reading a Bible on one hand with his hand a foot deep into a cow’s behind…they let you do it if you’re famous said the lord.
…you…you do know that’s not how insemination works…right?
if they’re in it’s behind, that’s an impacted colon and they are likely trying to clear it.
Definitely. Aren’t their hands in the anus?
Vegans will NEVER have the political clout to force their way of life on everyone, and they’re mad AF about it.
So fascism?
It’s not just political clout. Attempting to politically force veganism on the world would result in a war, not just votes against it.
Vegans don’t want to force anything on anyone. What we want to do is to persuade people to change their minds. I believe wholeheartedly that veganism as a majority position is inevitable. In the past, the idea that black women would be allowed to vote was more unthinkable than majority veganism is now. History trends towards progressivism.
FAFO
Uh, the guy in your link wasn’t fucking around though, he got lynched by an angry mob but did nothing wrong.
Not only that, but also vegan diet is literally making people crazy (or crazy people are more often on vegan diet, dealer’s choice).
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505#abstract
This is a metastudy not an original study though?
(And this is a shitpost community)
It means this metastudy is less of a study and more of an advertisement. The outcome of a metastudy depends even more on who does it, especially if they make up the criteria for which research is “good” enough to include.
I think people on the left as whole would be more prone to depression and anxiety too. People who care about the world are generally more concious, more self-aware and critical, which turn into more worrying and at the extreme, anxiety.
Wrong.
Mmm, no, there is a right answer and it’s this one. Well, it’s this one with more inclusive language. Like “People who have experienced more hardship with psychological consequences are more likely to avoid consumption of animal products”.
Doesn’t match the data. Study and raw data say nothing about the hardships.
This fella doesn’t know mental illnesses are caused by hardship and trauma
Can be caused my dude.