palou said:
... What concerns the bolded, here - that isn't how evolution works. There, in fact, exists no such thing as "devolution". We stay with whatever form is most optimal. Saying that eating less meat makes it more optimal to have smaller brains really doesn't have any sort of basis. (In the past, it could - since hunting required intelligence. The same can't be said about choosing ground pork on the supermarket aisle.) That is also not how regressive genes work. They don't activate on a diet, they activate if there is no dominant gene, (ususally only happens when inbreeding).
Again, omnivorous doesn't mean that we need a diverse diet. The whole point of being omnivorous, and what has allowed us to prosper so long, all over the globe, is that just about anything will do. As said, most ancient cultures had 90% of the population living almost exclusively off of the most available starch source. That definitely isn't healthy, and there are a number of specific *deficiencies* that were caused from it (scurvy, the most notable), but it still worked out, otherwise - because the human body is extremely adaptable, as said. These people were physical labourers, by the way - if anything, more so than anyone doing the same today. Deficiencies have been studied for a long, long time. You definitely don't slowly starve yourself to death from a vegan diet.
I'll agree that Veganism is more of a hassle than many people are willing to engage in, and does require you to do some linear algebra on your nutritional intake. Vegetarianism, on the other hand, does not have such a restriction, and is generally considered perfectly healthy, without supplements.
I've actually already debated someone on here that there aren't any inherent medical advantages to veganism, either, haha, so it's fun to defend the other side, for now. The point remains that there ISN'T anything, at all, in meat, that you can't find in higher concentration in some fairly common plant-based food - be it amino-acids, fatty acids, sugars, or any micronutrient of your choice. It requires some linear algebra to get the proportions right, because each *single* plant is further off from what you'd need, but there is absolutely no scientific reason for which a planned diet should in any shape or form have worse results on your health than taking it from meat. Because, again, in the sum, a diet can be planned to have entirely identical nutritional content, after digestion, if the calculations were done correctly.
Anyways, interesting topic. I'm not vegan/vegetarian, btw, haha!
|
