when the post says “vegans are obviously right”, assuming that to mean that humans are made to not eat meat is a very bad faith interpretation. similar equating can happen when someone says all genders are equal and someone pulls out the sexual dimorphism research to claim they aren’t. there’s missing context of what is being said and what is being interpreted. i dont believe there’s a substantial group of vegans claiming humans are incapable or not ‘evolved’ to eat meat.
i am not debating that humans are apes, most carnivore, or adapted to both meat and vegetables. i don’t agree there, citations needed, but taking it as a mere simplification of facts its fine enough.
there’s complexity to the question of eating meat now that society has reached a point where we no longer need it to sustain ourselves. i am not arguing either way here but an argument there exists and we will need to have an answer to it. just like we didnt evolve to be able to see if our eyes fuck up, but we managed to just have spectacles (and surgery) to fix it. we can adopt to a non-meat diet if that is the answer, whether or not we evolved for it.
i am conflicted on if vegans are right. but i can appreciate that they are at least right on pointing towards the question.
So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat.
So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself.
The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.
And? the thing is that still we can make do, its like implying a modern PC cannot run a NES game.
You have to emulate stuff btw.
giving the most benefit of the doubt to you here.
when the post says “vegans are obviously right”, assuming that to mean that humans are made to not eat meat is a very bad faith interpretation. similar equating can happen when someone says all genders are equal and someone pulls out the sexual dimorphism research to claim they aren’t. there’s missing context of what is being said and what is being interpreted. i dont believe there’s a substantial group of vegans claiming humans are incapable or not ‘evolved’ to eat meat.
i am not debating that humans are apes, most carnivore, or adapted to both meat and vegetables. i don’t agree there, citations needed, but taking it as a mere simplification of facts its fine enough.
there’s complexity to the question of eating meat now that society has reached a point where we no longer need it to sustain ourselves. i am not arguing either way here but an argument there exists and we will need to have an answer to it. just like we didnt evolve to be able to see if our eyes fuck up, but we managed to just have spectacles (and surgery) to fix it. we can adopt to a non-meat diet if that is the answer, whether or not we evolved for it.
i am conflicted on if vegans are right. but i can appreciate that they are at least right on pointing towards the question.
So that by itself is a very good question, but the ability of not consuminy it should not mean the obligation(or prohibition), or even the morals on the wheter of eating or not eating meat.
So thats my argument, we really should not matter that much about what is on the meal of people by itself. Maybe, one day, artificial meat becomes better than normal one and we end up replacing meat, and humannity, accidentally, end up as a vegan species by itself.
The thing is that involving the morally good or wrong about something like food shouldnt be a thing if it can be improved or obsoleted.