[spacefreak]

Walking to the shops damages planet more than going by car - Times UK Online


That's right, folks. Environmentalist calculations show that walking does more damage to the environment than driving - due to the energy used to produce food (and calories).

Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.

There is a catch, however. Humans can reverse these numbers by becoming vegans...

The ideal diet would consist of cereals and pulses. “This is a route which virtually nobody, apart from a vegan, is going to follow,”

[Rumor]

Sounds like vegan propaganda to me.

[Chuckit]

Haven't we known for a long time that eating meat is bad for the planet? Not news.

[tie]

Actually, I think we had a thread just the other day on it. Spacefreak just likes repeating old news apparently. Aren't you still looking for WMD?

[Rumor]

Humans were designed to eat meat, otherwise we would have a mouth full of molars.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Thread Topic

Walking damages planet more than going by car

Way to go, fatties.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Humans were designed to eat meat, otherwise we would have a mouth full of molars.

Humans weren't designed to eat meat, otherwise we would have a jaw which opens wide enough to clamp down on that cow's neck.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Humans weren't designed to eat meat, otherwise we would have a jaw which opens wide enough to clamp down on that cow's neck.

Ever see Stephen Tyler?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Humans were designed to eat meat, otherwise we would have a mouth full of molars.

We do have a mouth full of molars. We have a few canines, but if you take a look at an actual carnivore jaw (another example), you'll see the difference.

[Rumor]

I know the difference between a carnivore and a herbivore.

I never claimed humans were carnivores.

[Chuckit]

Then why would you argue against the idea that we are best adapted to a mainly vegetarian diet?

[Kerrigan]

Yes, it's all well and good, up to a point.

[Rumor]

That's because we are omnivores, not herbivores.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yes, it's all well and good, up to a point.

What? Walking?

Walking's no good for anyone.

You know those motorised (as in, ride around the room in them) lay-z-boys that the advertise on Channel 5 in the middle of the afternoon? Yep. I considered it. Seriously. I mean, how cool is that, not having to walk to the kitchen to get a tinnie or a pizza?

[Kerrigan]

Environmentalism, I mean. Some of the news that comes out is so odd or contradictory that I just ignore it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

That's because we are omnivores, not herbivores.

Humans are not all that well-adapted for digesting meat, especially raw meat. We can eat it, but our bodies are better adapted for vegetarianism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Environmentalism, I mean. Some of the news that comes out is so odd or contradictory that I just ignore it.

That's the best thing to do with it.

In this case, the guy is right. But since he probably also (in addition to going veggie) wants us to give up our V8s, he's probably best ignored.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Humans are not all that well-adapted for digesting meat, especially raw meat. We can eat it, but our bodies are better adapted for vegetarianism.

I eat sushi without ill effects. Poulty is easily digestible as well. Red meat is where a lot of problems can stem from.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What? Walking?

Walking's no good for anyone.

You know those motorised (as in, ride around the room in them) lay-z-boys that the advertise on Channel 5 in the middle of the afternoon? Yep. I considered it. Seriously. I mean, how cool is that, not having to walk to the kitchen to get a tinnie or a pizza?

Psst...what's a tinnie?

[Dakarʒ]

Beer.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Poulty is easily digestible as well.

Uh…enjoy your salmonellosis?

[OldManMac]

Ride a bicycle, the most efficient means of transport in energy expenditure.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Uh…enjoy your salmonellosis?

I should have spaced my sentance out more. Looking back makes it sound like I eat raw chicken.

I meant cooked.

[Sherman Homan]

"Life is a sexually transmitted fatal disease."
Anon.

[nonhuman]

It seems to me that the fact that humans don't digest raw meat very well could very easily be explained by the fact that we've been eating cooked meat for possibly as long as 1.6 million years. It's just vaguely possible that the fact that we haven't generally had to eat raw meat for such a long time has led to a change in our stomach flora that makes it more difficult for us to do so.

I don't know enough about the subject to say for sure, but I certainly wouldn't say that our current inability to digest raw meat isn't in part our own fault.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It seems to me that the fact that humans don't digest raw meat very well could very easily be explained by the fact that we've been eating cooked meat for possibly as long as 1.6 million years. It's just vaguely possible that the fact that we haven't generally had to eat raw meat for such a long time has led to a change in our stomach flora that makes it more difficult for us to do so.

Go veggie for a year or two and you'll find it difficult to process cooked meat too.
Since you're fed meat from an early age, your body gets used to the abuse. Let it revert to its natural diet (no meat) and you lose that tolerance for abuse.

[smacintush]

I love these "humans aren't meant to eat meat" bullshit discussions.

Here I stole this from another site:

Introduction

There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet

Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

Omnivorism

The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

The Great Apes

There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates).

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores

Archeological Record

As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types

Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats

Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws

Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands

These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.

Intestines

Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

From Wiki:

There is considerable debate over whether humans are physiologically better suited to a herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore diet. The Vegetarian Resource Group and others however, have concluded that humans are naturally omnivores.[4][5][6]
The intestines of carnivorous predators are relatively short compared with those of plant-eating animals and human beings. Since meat is more easily digested than plant matter, the elaborate digestive system found in plant-eaters is unnecessary. Herbivores need a much longer intestine to allow sufficient time for the digestion of vegetable fibers. However humans, like most omnivorous and carnivorous mammals, produce the enzyme pepsin in their stomachs, which is mainly of value in digesting animal, not plant, proteins.
Others study statistical information, such as comparing life expectancy with regional areas and local diets. Examples include looking within countries themselves. For instance, life expectancy is considerably greater in southern France, where a semi-vegetarian Mediterranean diet is common (fresh fruit, vegetables, olive oil, goat cheese and fish), than northern France, where an omnivorous diet is more common (also including pork, beef, butter, cows cheese and cream).[52] It must be noted that national life expectancy is affected by many factors, which include access to adequate healthcare and medicine. This makes it difficult to conclusively prove any correlation between regional diets and life expectancy.

What? Are you guys who think that humans are vegetarians ANTI-SCIENCE???

The problem with meat isn't that we are not supposed to eat it, it's that we are eating too much of it and often especially the wrong kinds. We should be eating red meats only rarely (that's "not often", not "cooked rare" ) Though it should be pointed out that there are places where the "locals" eat as much as 60% meat in there diets and they have no significant incidences of heart disease, so there's more going on there than "red meat is just bad for you".

It also should be noted that people whose main meat source is fish live longer than the veggies do. So much for "we ain't meant to eat that".

Really, you guys are perfectly justified eating meat for ethical reasons, health reasons, etc.. You don't have to make up excuses or buy into propaganda.

[Chuckit]

If humans were really meant to be omnivorous, there would be no good health reasons for not eating meat, would there?

The fact is, we cannot eat like other omnivores. Heck, a lot of the stuff that animals well-adapted to meat-eating take in would kill us. Our veggie-processing prowess is much better developed. I agree that humans can be classed as omnivores, but I think it's more accurate to say we're herbivores with some adaptations to make eating meat possible. To use a MacNN-appropriate analogy, we boot Veggie OS X natively, but we can run an old copy of Carnivore 95 in Virtual PC.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What? Are you guys who think that humans are vegetarians ANTI-SCIENCE???

Right then, here's some scientific method for you:

Go eat a cow. Uncooked and without tools, like the rest of the carnivores/omnivores do. Go on, just jump in that field and chow down.

Report back with your results.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Go eat a cow. Uncooked and without tools, like the rest of the carnivores/omnivores do. Go on, just jump in that field and chow down.

"The rest of the carnivores/omnivores" huh?

You see a lot of pigs…or raccoons…or black bears…or opossums take down and eat large game lately?

Why do you lump carnivores and omnivores together in this?

And…a COW? Why pick a cow? I could as easily say: "So, you think you are an herbivore? Go out and eat nothing but un-cooked leaves and grass like the "rest" of the herbivores do." You deliberately pick an extreme example which I have ALREADY SAID that I think should be eaten very little of in the first place.

Such a stupid example.

Oh…and:

Some people think that because humans cannot synthesize their own vitamin C due to a mutation at some point in time, a meat-only diet will lead to scurvy. But this is not entirely true, as proven by the excellent health of native Inuits who consume a diet of almost nothing but raw meat and fish for their entire lives. It is the eating of meat and fish without cooking that preserves the vitamin C in the flesh and prevents scurvy. The Inuits who stick to their native diet also show remarkably low rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high cholesterol, depression, anxiety disorder, epilepsy, tooth decay, and cancer, among other things.

Pointing out that we are not like this animal or that animal or that we don't take down and eat raw an animal 6 times our own mass doesn't prove anything. There are may unique species in this world and we are one of them.

I know, I know, I need to ignore facts and believe something based upon my faith in the Doofmeister alone.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If humans were really meant to be omnivorous, there would be no good health reasons for not eating meat, would there?

Why not? Some omnivores need a lot of meat, others very little. And as I have tried to point out there are plenty of near carnivore humans in this world who are very healthy so I don't think it's that simple. There are other factors of our diet that we don't seem to understand yet.

The fact is, we cannot eat like other omnivores.

Which one(s)? They aren't all the same!

Heck, a lot of the stuff that animals well-adapted to meat-eating take in would kill us.

#1 - Like what?

#2 - How does that apply to us? How long does a dog live if you give him mounds of chocolate everyday? Or a cat onions?

Our veggie-processing prowess is much better developed. I agree that humans can be classed as omnivores, but I think it's more accurate to say we're herbivores with some adaptations to make eating meat possible.

I don't think you are that far off.

We are BETTER off eating fish than not eating fish, so where does that put us? Just because we are intelligent enough to eat food that allows us to be healthy without meat doesn't mean that we weren't meant to eat it. It just means that we are not a "meat heavy" species, we know what food does what and how to manipulate our diets. Vegetarians do it all the time.


All omnivore means is that our food processing structure isn't highly specialized. We don't have the digestive system that a carnivore does, but it's not like a "true" herbivore either.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

"The rest of the carnivores/omnivores" huh?

You see a lot of pigs…or raccoons…or black bears…or opossums take down and eat large game lately?

Right. So go grab a rabbit then. No cooking, no tools. Just munch down. My omnivore cats can do a rabbit in a single sitting (that's one rabbit per cat. Everything bar the tail - they leave that for some reason) so your omnivore self should be able to do it easily, considering the weight difference.

Pics pleez.

Or are you against scientific method?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Why do you lump carnivores and omnivores together in this?

Because I've never met a cat who won't eat a french fry.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Right. So go grab a rabbit then. No cooking, no tools. Just munch down. My omnivore cats can do a rabbit in a single sitting (that's one rabbit per cat. Everything bar the tail - they leave that for some reason) so your omnivore self should be able to do it easily, considering the weight difference.

Pics pleez.

Or are you against scientific method?

Wouldn't prove a damn thing no matter what the result.

And go tell the Inuit that eating raw meat will make them sick or kill them.

Because I've never met a cat who won't eat a french fry.

That's just brilliant. Animals will drink anti-freeze too.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Walking to the shops damages planet more than going by car - Times UK Online

That's right, folks. Environmentalist calculations show that walking does more damage to the environment than driving - due to the energy used to produce food (and calories).

There is a catch, however. Humans can reverse these numbers by becoming vegans...

This is about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

[Rumor]

We have adapted from eating raw meat since the discovery of fire. Just because we no longer eat it raw*, does not mean we were not supposed to eat it.

*We still do in various forms such as sushi, sashimi and steak tar-tar.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Common people...

Humans were designed to eat whatever the hell we could find.

We're designed to be predatory at times It's why we evolved to be intelligent in the first place, so we could trap those yummy packets of nutrients running around when we couldn't find plants to eat. We weren't designed to drag down the animal by the throat, we were blessed with brains to kill the animal before we mess around with it's inside parts.

We were designed to eat veggies at times. We need the sugars and starches from sugars in order to digest the fat from the animals we eat.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Common people...

Come on, it's not that hard to spell.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

We're designed to be predatory at times It's why we evolved to be intelligent in the first place, so we could trap those yummy packets of nutrients running around when we couldn't find plants to eat. We weren't designed to drag down the animal by the throat, we were blessed with brains to kill the animal before we mess around with it's inside parts.

So, we really wanted to eat some animals despite our previously vegetarian diet, and thus we spent millions of years evolving intelligence? That makes sense. Wait, no.

Also, humans really don't have predatory instincts. We can be violent, but if you look at the way a cat reacts when a bird flies by and how a human reacts, you will have no trouble guessing which one is actually a predator and which one is a herbivore with some adaptations to process meat.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

We were designed to eat veggies at times. We need the sugars and starches from sugars in order to digest the fat from the animals we eat.

We do not, however, need to eat animals for anything.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Come on, it's not that hard to spell.


So, we really wanted to eat some animals despite our previously vegetarian diet, and thus we spent millions of years evolving intelligence? That makes sense. Wait, no.

Also, humans really don't have predatory instincts. We can be violent, but if you look at the way a cat reacts when a bird flies by and how a human reacts, you will have no trouble guessing which one is actually a predator and which one is a herbivore with some adaptations to process meat.


We do not, however, need to eat animals for anything.

We did at one point, due to living on sheets of ice where plant food was not readily accessible, so we did need to eat animals to survive. We're not a carnivorous animal like a cat or a dog. We're designed to eat whatever came across our paths without being picky so we could live in areas that other animals couldn't. You're making a fool's argument to say that we weren't designed to eat meat. We were designed to eat anything that was not spoiled. Isn't evolution grand?

[design219]

I don't buy this article. He doesn't seem to factor in time. The drive will take significantly less time than walking, so, after you arrive at your destination, you will still burn calories during the balance of time the walk would have taken. People burn calories all the time ... shopping, working, even sitting at a computer.

And if you take a bigger view of auto travel vs. walking, there is a environmental cost in road construction and maintenance, safety enforcement, the manufacturing of autos, etc., etc.

[Sky Captain]

Humans are omnivores.
We hunted animals when there was no vegitation in the winter.
There are numerous cave paintings that demonstrate this.
Or are the vegans ignoring this also?

I had a Boston Butt roast in the smoker all day yesterday.
It's delicious. And I have some roasted corn to go with it for lunch.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This is about the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

It's hard to believe that people are debating this and taking him seriously, isn't it? It's as if cars were made via magic and there was no energy expended to make them, market them, ship them, repair them, etc., etc. There's no doubt that driving less is beneficial, but to stretch the argument to this level is ludicrous.

[turtle777]

if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes.

Defying gravity will be easier than making a couch potatoe eat LESS

-t

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by design219 

I don't buy this article. He doesn't seem to factor in time. The drive will take significantly less time than walking, so, after you arrive at your destination, you will still burn calories during the balance of time the walk would have taken. People burn calories all the time ... shopping, working, even sitting at a computer.

And if you take a bigger view of auto travel vs. walking, there is a environmental cost in road construction and maintenance, safety enforcement, the manufacturing of autos, etc., etc.

The article is highly suspect. They factor in the cost of transportation of the food for the non-driver, but don't take into account the cost of transportation of the fuel for the car. Generally, a walker (someone interested in their own health) will have a healthier diet than one who doesn't. Someone driving is a hundred percent more likely to go through a drive-thru and buy a burger than one who walk.

I don't know anyone who ever says, well, I drove my car today so I don't need to eat dinner (veggie or not).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

You're making a fool's argument to say that we weren't designed to eat meat.

They like to try and prove that humans aren't omnivores by demonstrating that we aren't carnivores…

[smacintush]

Does anyone find it strange that we are debating what type of diet we are meant for?

Is this a flaw in our tendency to over-classify and analyze everything or are we just so out of touch with ourselves that don't even know what we should eat? Or both?

Sad.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Does anyone find it strange that we are debating what type of diet we are meant for?

No. Until you lot (that's all 6 billion of you) give up you meat then I ain't giving up my driving. Which is sort of the point of this thread.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

are we just so out of touch with ourselves that don't even know what we should eat?

Yes. So out of touch that we think we're omnivores. Raw rabbit every meal for a week and you'll see how much of an omnivore you are.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by design219 

I don't buy this article. He doesn't seem to factor in time. The drive will take significantly less time than walking, so, after you arrive at your destination, you will still burn calories during the balance of time the walk would have taken. People burn calories all the time ... shopping, working, even sitting at a computer.

Yes, but the number calories you burn anyway is basically a fixed value. It should be factored out of equations. You will always burn that many calories in a day as long as you don't kill yourself. When we're talking about changing our calorie consumption, the question is how many calories you burn on top of that.

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Humans are omnivores.
We hunted animals when there was no vegitation in the winter.
There are numerous cave paintings that demonstrate this.
Or are the vegans ignoring this also?

Try reading the thread next time. Nobody's questioning whether humans have eaten meat — I can sit at a McDonalds and answer that one pretty easily. The point is that we aren't very good at eating meat: It usually doesn't give us most of the nutrients we need, it gives us a bunch of stuff that is bad for us, and it generally requires a crapton of processing just not to kill us. If you think that is a food that's well-suited to us, I've got a bottle of arsenic you can try.

[nonhuman]

Even deer eat meat. The idea that humans are strictly herbivorous is just ludicrous. It is only because of our intelligence and technology that we're even capable of living a vaguely vegetarian lifestyle. Before we developed agriculture there simply weren't enough surplus vegetables for humans to survive the winter without hunting and eating meat. Whether they cooked it or not is irrelevant: we can digest both raw and cooked meat. The more often we eat meat, raw or otherwise, the better our body is able to handle it. We are adaptable: a clear sign that we are omnivorous.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Even deer eat meat. The idea that humans are strictly herbivorous is just ludicrous.

Really? Wouldn't the fact that herbivores can eat some meat help the argument that humans are herbivores?

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It is only because of our intelligence and technology that we're even capable of living a vaguely vegetarian lifestyle.

It's only because of our intelligence and technology that we can eat meat. If you don't believe it, take Doofy up on his challenge.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We are adaptable: a clear sign that we are omnivorous.

Perhaps you should define "omnivorous." Many people simply seem to be arguing that because humans have eaten meat before, that makes them well-adapted omnivores.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Really? Wouldn't the fact that herbivores can eat some meat help the argument that humans are herbivores?

Only if you redefine herbivore, carnivore, and omnivore... I'd say, rather, that it's evidence that those classifications are more or less useless and that probably all animals are, to some extent, omnivorous.

It's either a biological or a behavioral classification. If it's behavioral, then humans are omnivorous simply because they sometimes eat meat. If it's biological than humans are omnivorous simply because they are capable of eating meat.

It's only because of our intelligence and technology that we can eat meat. If you don't believe it, take Doofy up on his challenge.

That's simply not true. Humans can eat raw meat. See steak tartare if you don't believe me. Other than bacteria and parasites (which are a separate issue) it is perfectly fine for humans to eat meat raw on occassion. Yes, if you eat too much raw meat you'll have problems digesting it, but in moderation it's just fine. Bears are considered to be omnivores despite the fact that they generally subsist on roots and berries and generally only eat meat when they stumble upon a carcass (or during salmon runs for some bears).

Omnivorous does not mean that you eat equal amounts plant and animal matter, only that you eat (or can eat) both.

Perhaps you should define "omnivorous." Many people simply seem to be arguing that because humans have eaten meat before, that makes them well-adapted omnivores.

No, you're just not understanding the argument. The argument is that since people can eat meat they are adapted to be omnivores. Humans can eat meat without getting sick. They can even eat raw meat without getting sick. The same is true of our closest relatives, chimpanzees. Chimpanzees eat meat on occasion. They'll even hunt for it. They'll even engage in cannibalism when they raid neighboring chimpanzee communities, slaughter the inhabitants, and eat them.

omnivorous |ämˈniv(ə)rəs|
adjective
(of an animal or person) feeding on food of both plant and animal origin.