Originally posted by VoidSpiritPrecisely. Both hunting and meat-eating may have been required in human evolution, but just as hunting is no longer required, too is meat-eating not required.
early humans didn't have agriculture, they were gatherers. when the technology of hunting was discovered, it vastly improved their nutrient intake and that's why it was essential for early development.
but in the modern world, with abundant and varied agriculture products, meat is no longer essential, it may even be detrimental...but it is still easy to acquire.
Proteins serve to build muscle. Were it that you had to chase your food rather than drive to the store and buy it, eating meat would be more necessary. The same would be true if our wars were fought by swinging swords rather than pushing buttons: the society with access to proteins would have an advantage.
This is hardly 'evolution'.
-Removed-The point in the OP is that meat eating is biologically essential for evolution; hunting has nothing to do with biology.
No; I think the point ia that meat-eating was essential for our evolution, not necessarily that it continues to be essential in our nutrition. But as Twitehead astutely observed, so was hunting. Does that mean we should still hunt?
-Removed-I am a vegetarian. I have perfectly healthy skin. I lift weights, run, practice contortion and do slalom skating. I have a haemoglobin count of 170, which is above average for a man, and I donate plasma every three weeks. Providing that a vegetarian eats a variety of foods, they can live quite healthily. I also know many eat-meaters who live off franfurts and salami, have pimples and are over-weight.