OMNIVORE

 One of the most ridiculous and persistent false claims made by armchair nutritionists, meatarian propagandists, and even academics, who really should know better, is that the human species is an “omnivore”; that is, it should eat both plant and animal matter.

   In general, this error is based on the accidental, or probably intentional, confusing of the verbs “to be” and “to do”.  If the human “is” a natural omnivore, then we should have ALL the physical and biochemical equipment that is necessary to run down, kill with our bare hands, tear asunder, eat, and properly digest, RAW animal prey, just as ALL natural omnivores, or carnivores, do.  Just examining our own bodies will conclusively prove that we do not have the claws or talons necessary to catch and hold animal prey, and we certainly do not have the sharp teeth necessary to tear, not chew, animal flesh.  Neither are we fast enough to outrun and catch animals.  In fact natural omnivores or carnivores don’t chew their eaten flesh, they tear it into chunks and swallow them whole.

   No human cultural-carnivore kills its animal prey with their natural equipment, nor do they eat their animal prey raw. In fact, we have strong anti-killing instincts.  Just trying to kill an animal with your bare hands will demonstrate this.

   Any second-grader could differentiate between the verbs “be” and “do”, yet this important distinction is totally ignored by cultural carnivores, and even academics with PhD’s, who foolishly claim that because humans have been DOing cultural-carnivorism for a long time, that somehow magically, we ARE “omnivores”.  They want to believe that DOing modifies BEing. Thus failing to understand the profound difference between Nature, and inviolable Natural Laws, and silly, self-destructive local cultural customs.

   One hears claims that since “Paleolithic man” ate flesh, that modern humans are somehow “adapted” to do so. The “Paleolithic argument” runs like this: The proto-human was indeed a frugivore (eating primarily fruit) fifty million years ago up until two million years ago, when the “appearance of stone tools and cultures at this time” coincided with “increased meat-eating”.  Well, that’s the end of the argument! As its fatal flaw is revealed: the fact is that “increased meat-eating” occurred ONLY because of tool use, and since tools, including fire, are a product of culture, not Nature, cultural practices, such as those powerful self-destructive cultural practices of today, are totally unrelated to our natural nutritional needs, which are programmed at the genetic level…

   Many meat eating anthropologists have fantasized that humans commonly ‘scavenged’ dead, putrefying flesh left to rot by natural carnivores, or produced by the natural death of animals. Totally Absurd!  I would challenge any such confused academics to test their own theory by actually eating some rotting road-kill, raw, with their bare hands.  With this simple test, said academic would immediately be forced to face reality instead of being hopelessly lost in vague, unsupportable, academic speculation.  Let a group of academics who propagate this silly theory actually go to the field and fight off a pack of wild dogs or lions to get their leftovers, or chow down on a putrefying corpse crawling with maggots. YUMMY!  In fact the human is programmed at the genetic level to vigorously avoid rotting protein, and is particularly sensitive to such repulsive odors which produce instantaneous, powerful, gag and nausea reflexes in even the most stalwart meatarian.  Yet, even 'educated’ academics with PhD’s cannot deal with this simple and overwhelmingly obvious fact in their boundless zeal to reconstruct a long-lost past from infinitesimally small amounts of data; and worse, massage this virtually nonexistent data with their local culture’s conditioned belief systems to produce wildly imaginative, yet obviously false, claims about the human being.

   Although some humans “may have”, post-tool, consumed rotting animal flesh intentionally, the inherent repulsiveness of which was masked by the destructive, pyrolytic effects of fire, the fact is that the natural human would not have left any lingering evidence of its natural diet, just as the modern chimp does not leave any trace of its existence.  Eat some fruit, drop the seeds on the ground, eat some leaves, eat some nuts – where is the physical evidence that lingers for tens or hundreds of thousands of years?  NONE!

   So, all so-called Paleolithic “evidence” of human flesh-eating is merely a collection of self-selected, statistically-insignificant cultural artifacts, totally unrelated to our species’ true nutritional needs.

   Further more, such physical evidence of human flesh-eating, such as tool-scarred bones or ancient fire pits, is found only in northern areas which are well outside of the natural ecological niche for our tropical ape species anyway; thus, any evidence of cultural diets so remote from our proper ecological niche is totally irrelevant to any understanding of what the natural diet for our species is.  This ecologically-relevant, and crucially-important fact is universally, and conveniently, ignored in any discussions of Paleolithic humans.  Paleolithic humans are not natural humans and are just as irrelevant as any modern cultural group and their modern self-destructive dietary practices.

   Therefore, it is obvious that any claims as to the applicability of the Paleolithic diet to any understanding of the natural diet for our species are totally, and unavoidably, FALSE!  They are shams based firmly on lies and distortions.  If one can get a meatarian propagandist to actually admit that these incredibly recent, human flesh-eating practices are only a cultural artifact, then the ruse becomes: “Yes, it is not natural, but we 'adapted’ or 'evolved’ to eating animal flesh and animal products”.  This is another blatant, yet annoyingly popular, lie, and it just simply can not be supported by current evolutionary theory. Evolution happens because of small, infrequent, random mutations in the genetic material: most mutations are neutral and are never expressed, some very small number may be “beneficial” in that they allow better functioning in the environment, and some very small number may be deleterious, such as those that produce “genetic diseases”.  There must also be some “selective mechanism” to produce more survival success in those with the “beneficial” mutation, or it will not propagate throughout the species to produce a species-wide “adaptation”.  So, what are the “selective pressures” or “selective mechanism” that would cause the numerous and large-scale changes in dozens of separate biochemical pathways involved in human digestion, transport, and assimilation of a diet so radically different in chemistry as an alleged “adaptation” from plant chemistry to flesh chemistry?  Note that dozens of biochemical pathways must change simultaneously in the same individual for such an “adaptation” to occur.  And there are none.  Because a faulty diet does not kill its proponents outright BEFORE reproductive age, there is simply no way to “adapt” to a diet radically different in chemistry from the natural one for that species, even IF the dozens of required changes might magically occur in one individual.

   Not surprisingly, all such claims as to the unsupported human 'evolution’ from frugivores to omnivores conveniently do not mention the fact that neither the necessary sharp tools (teeth and claws), digestive biochemistry, fleetness of foot, nor animal-killing instincts have co-evolved with the alleged 'evolution’ to omnivore.

SPEAK FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF.