The Scavenger

Salvaging whats left after the masses have had their feed

VSF-468x60

Wed08162017

Last updateWed, 12 Apr 2017 9am

Menu Style

Cpanel
Back You are here: Home Social Justice Animals Humans didn’t evolve to eat meat

Humans didn’t evolve to eat meat

Humans didn’t evolve to eat meat any more than we evolved to build skyscrapers – and it’s time we stopped attributing our consumption of animals to ‘evolution’, writes Tim Gier.

There is a recurring argument which vegans (and vegetarians, too) constantly hear about how evolution has shaped humankind in terms of what we should eat. Although the specific argument may take different forms, all of them basically come down to this:

Humans have evolved to eat meat, it is unnatural for us not to eat meat, and therefore we should eat meat; it is right for us to do so.

Did humans evolve to eat meat?

Before trying to understand what a study of the fossil record can tell us about evolution, it will be helpful to understand what we mean by evolution in the first place.

Humans have not evolved to do anything. That is, the theory of evolution describes what we can observe as having already happened; it predicts what will most likely happen next and it explains how both those things come to be.

But the theory of evolution does not suggest that there is some goal to the process or that any living thing is evolving to be or to do anything at all. In other words, evolution describes how things are, not why they are.

For instance, sharks have been sharks for a long, long time. Sharks have all the brain size, eyesight, sense of smell, ability to move and all the other qualities of being that they need to live quite well as sharks.

Evolution is not thinking about making them move up the food chain, or pushing them toward some progressive goal. Sharks are highly suited to their environment. They are efficient exploiters of the resources available to them. They have evolved over time, but the ancient sharks in the fossil record are very similar in the most important ways to modern sharks.

What is evolution doing then?

Evolution isn’t doing anything, because evolution isn’t some “thing” that acts upon the world, it is a description of the processes in the world.

Sharks have adapted to the various pressures in their environments which have threatened their survival. Individual sharks have not done so though, “sharks,” as a population of beings, have done so.

Imagine that it is 200 million years ago and that “sharks” live mostly in fresh water and not in the salty oceans. Something happens that threatens the habitat – maybe an ice age freezes huge amounts of water and fresh water lakes and ponds shrink dramatically in size. The population of sharks in endangered. We can imagine that even though the salt water oceans also shrink in size, they are not affected nearly as much as the lakes would be.

Now suppose that some individual sharks have a strange mutation (we might call it a birth defect) that allows them to survive in salt water.

Normally, those sharks would not survive particularly well, but these are not normal times and what was once a hindrance is now a benefit. So, because they are better suited to living in the salt water which is now more abundant than the fresh water, they reproduce successfully while the strictly fresh water sharks become more and more scarce.

The fresh water sharks are stuck in an environment that is shrinking and they are competing for fewer and fewer resources. The salt water mutants have all the water and resources they could possible want.

The mutated sharks survive, and they are the most fit to survive in the new and altered environment they find themselves in. But evolution had no purpose, and the sharks didn’t evolve to live in the salt water, it all happened by chance.

So, did humans evolve to eat meat?

No, because humans haven’t evolved to do anything. We didn’t evolve to build skyscrapers, or read books, or fight wars. We can do all those things but we are not purposely designed to do those things; it is just how we are, and those are among the many, many things we are able to do.

Did humans evolve by eating meat?

That’s a better question, and lots of people want to believe that the answer is yes, but I’d like for you to consider this:

A recent study by Pappenbeimer (1998) on the significance of absorptive mechanisms in relation to scaling of the dimensions of small intestines goes one step farther towards the interpretation of the above allometric relationships.

Transcellular absorption is lower in large species than in small species, whereas paracellular fluid absorption is greater. Paracellular fluid absorption may dominate in large faunivores with a small mucosal area (scaled to L^ in fig. i), whereas in large folivorous species the relatively diluted intestinal fluid and the low rate of transcellular absorption may be compensated for by an increase in the mucosal area (tending towards I’ rather than L^), the frugivores being intermediate.

What? That’s from the paper On Diet and Gut Size in Non-human Primates and Humans: Is There a Relationship to Brain Size? in the journal Current Anthropology and it shows, I think, that trying to understand the relationship between diet and the evolution of our brain power, or anything else that makes us human for that matter, may be more like rocket science than many of us think. This is some highly technical stuff and it would be a mistake to think that there are easy and simple answers to very complicated questions.

It is intuitive to think that eating “high quality” proteins from animals led to our own “high quality” intelligence, but scientists don’t rely on intuition, and even they don’t agree on what the evidence shows.

For every study that purports to show that meat-eating caused us to be who we are today, there’s another (from the same paper, by the way) that reaches a conclusion such as this:

In conclusion, H. sapiens does not seem to be an exception among the primates in terms of diet and gut size. There is no doubt that our species needs a rich diet to cover large energy expenses, but it requires relatively no richer a diet than many Cehidae and Cercopithecidae feeding on sweet fruits, complemented by the protein and fat of a large proportion of insects. The areas of mucosa that have been actually measured in humans do not show any trend towards a reduced intestine that would have allowed a supplement of energy for a large brain.

Whatever archaeology and anthropology can tell us, how far back in time would we like to look?

If we take the conclusion of the article cited above as instructive, then we should all be eating cockroaches for breakfast (and indeed in some cultures we do).

A review of the trajectory of evolution can’t tell us anything definitive about what we ate when and how it affected who we have evolved to be today. In that sense, our appraisals of the history of diet may be more like a Rorschach test revealing not what is true, but only what we already want to believe.

Humans did not evolve to eat meat, because we haven’t evolved to do anything, and although eating meat may have contributed to our success as a species, we cannot use evolution as justification for moral behavior.

After all, we have also survived throughout time with the capacities for greed, violence and hatred. No-one suggests that we should celebrate or encourage those things, even though it may be true that they have contributed to our better chances for survival.

It is no more unnatural to abstain from exploiting all the other animals of the world than it is unnatural to abstain from assaulting others on the street to steal the things they have which we desire.

Just because our ancestors would have done so 250,000 years ago as they fought tooth and nail to survive in a cold cruel world does not mean that we should or that it would be right for us to do so now.

If we have evolved to “do” anything, then we have certainly evolved to think beyond our basest impulses and to act as something more than creatures driven by unthinking instincts.

We have survived on this planet because we have the capacity for rational thought, the imagination to see a better future and the ability to recreate our own environments.

Some people may want to view evolution as an excuse to remain trapped in the violent nature of ancient history. I choose to see it as our best hope to break free of those chains to live in a peaceful tomorrow.

Tim Gier is a vegan abolitionist writer whose former career in automobile sales management spanned 25 years. He writes about business, politics, human behavior and sometimes pop culture at his blog.

SEE ALSO: Eating animals may be natural, but so what?

 

Comments   

-5 #9 Adriano Frisicaro 2012-07-26 07:13
So here we have a former car salesman redefining the scientific term evolution. Perhaps you'd like to say what you think qualifies you to do so? When it is said that we have evolved to eat meat what is meant is the human body has physical adaptations, such as a relatively short digestive tract and canine teeth that allow us to or because we eat meat.

I can appreciate there are moral and philosophical arguments for eating no, or at least less meat, but please refrain from the scientific argument if you don't understand it. All you have done with this article is displayed your ignorance. The worst of your mistakes is cherry picking the data. You highlight the evidence that supports your argument while ignoring the evidence that contradicts you as a previous reply says. You can't do this and expect any credence. Please read Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science, or at least try to educate yourself before making any further scientific arguments.
Quote
-5 #8 Aaron 2011-10-19 07:52
Honestly, you have no idea how good meat is. I want to to just throw science in the corner for a second and think about the urges we get. We get urges to eat meat. A friend from work (we work at a supermarket deli) is a vegetarian and struggles to deny herself meat. And why is that? The body is craving the meat. Craving the protein and iron. Craving the texture that hits the tongue just right. If it feels good for the greater population, I would take a guess at saying that is what we are meant to be doing. And do not give me that bull crap about "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, would you?" because I have heard of it before. Let me ask you something. What is that thing that the US, UK , Australia and the rest of the commonwealth fighting for in Middle Eastern countries? That is right, democracy. And what is democracy? To put it in the most simplest terms: "The greater part of the nation wishes for this to be, so it shall be done".... Doesn't that sound like something I said earlier. You cannot pick and choose when something works for you. It just works. I am not telling you to eat meat, because that is a personal choice that is entirely up to you, but you are missing out. So please stop with your tunnel vision.
Do have a cow man
Quote
0 #7 steven 2011-04-09 03:04
Good article. I liked the shark analogy to describe evolution.

I was more interested in the question, "did we evolve by eating meat" than "did we evolve to eat meat", which to me doesn't make too much sense.

I doubt there could be a definitive answer to this question anytime soon, but I think it's safe to say that, if humans began eating meat and other forms of early man didn't, then it gave us a survival advantage, especially when/where food became scarce. Therefore, in some way, it did shape us to become who we are today.

Or maybe, it was because we were more resourceful than other forms of early man (because we were inherently smarter for one reason or another) , that we realized that we could use meat as food, which increased our survival rate over other forms of early man.

I'm not a scientist, but it's just a thought.
Quote
+1 #6 John 2010-11-04 19:25
I think humans evolved by consuming many different proteins and fats, but acquiring these vital nutrients is not limited to meat and animal flesh alone. Omega 3 fatty acids are an essential part of brain development, and some scientists believe that this acid is what helped us evolve. These essential fatty acids are found in walnuts, soy; flax seed and tofu, so maybe we should give more credit to grains and vegetables than to meat and other animal products. In my humble opinion, I don't think meat is necessary in order for survival, as we can get nutrition from many other sources, and the way meat is processed is completely unethical. With that said, however, I do believe that humans evolved from a mixed diet consisting of meat, grains and vegetables.
Quote
0 #5 lou 2010-09-08 12:39
Funny, in the early 1900's CAD was almost unheard of. Once people stared to reduce animal meats, butter and the like, is when heart disease was noticed.

And for.anyone to say every person should each the.same way is quite moronic. Each person is obviously quite unique with our own bio chemistry, genetic make up and ancestral roots. One man's food is another man's poison.
Quote
-3 #4 Alex 2010-09-03 13:31
Humans have better brains than any other ape because we are carnivores.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0218_050218_human_diet.html
Quote
+1 #3 Tim Gier 2010-08-17 20:40
Thanks for your comment. As I tried to say in the piece, bur perhaps did not as clearly as I would have liked, I included the language from the scientific paper because "it shows, I think, that trying to understand the relationship between diet and the evolution of our brain power, or anything else that makes us human for that matter, may be more like rocket science than many of us think. This is some highly technical stuff and it would be a mistake to think that there are easy and simple answers to very complicated questions."

My point is that "evolution" is something quite a bit more complex than what most people, myself included, consider it to be as we go about our everyday lives. And yes, insects are animals, although they do not have flesh. I think the paper finds that there is not enough evidence to conclude that the evolutionary development of the brain of modern humans depended on the eating of flesh. Lots of "meat" eaters seem to think differently though.
Quote
0 #2 Chuck 2010-08-15 00:41
"humans require a large proportion of animal protein and fat?"

Don't get to excited and start cursing at me too but there is NO definitive science to prove what that paper and you suggesting . Science is constantly changing and for you to think that this paper won't be discredited proves and inability to understand concepts. Obesity and cancer are what you get from a large proportion of animal fat and protien most likely thus the reason for the AETA (animal enterprise terrorism act) which make every effort to silence dissent in a toxic meat eating society.
Quote
-1 #1 Russell Edwards 2010-08-14 16:58
LOL, OMFG, you quote a section of a scientific paper you do not even understand, just to illustrate that former used car salesman find scientific discourse hard to fathom?

FFS, maybe you should just admit that you are not qualified to have an opinion on the subject. (For your information, that passage was talking about different ways nutrients can be absorbed and the patterns between this and diet, and gut size.)

By the way did you notice the paper concluded by saying that a humans require a large proportion of animal protein and fat? Insects are animals.
Quote

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Share this post

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Personal Development

personal-development
Be the change.