Perhaps you can easily wrap your head around the idea of killing 10 billion living creatures a year. I have a really hard time even imagining we're capable of being that efficient at killing. It's almost all from factory farming which you agreed in an earlier comment is "terrible". Maybe you wouldn't go so far as to say it's evil. I will.

Everyday, science learns that humans aren't all that special in our capacity to feel pain, plan for the future, find enjoyment out of life, care for our offspring, etc. This is one of those issues where eventually we will all be horrified at what we allowed to happen.

But any time that we make a judgement call that some being's suffering and untimely death is okay because it's lesser than us, that says more about us than it does about those beings. As a species, we've certainly been wrong about these things before.

Yes, humans evolved to eat some meat in their diets at points in time where other foods were scarce. This does not mean that meat is something we should eat often or as a primary source of food. And it does not mean that we can't survive without it.

In addition to the incomparable suffering that animals who spend their entire lives in factory farms experience, a few good reasons are:

1. It is the number one cause of global warming

2. It's one of the main causes of deadly health problems in humans (heart disease, cancer, obesity related diseases).

3. It's a big reason why people go hungry. You can grow way more food to feed people through plant based agriculture. When you allocate land to meat production, you deprive people of food.

4. The reason why 60% of the rivers in America are classified as "impaired" due to runoff.

There are lots more reasons if you look and I suggest you do.

Just because we've done something for a long time doesn't mean we should keep doing it. Wouldn't you say that the conditions of the world have changed considerably since we were hunter-gatherers a few thousand years ago? Well, we need to evolve. The very best thing you can do for the planet, other humans, and yourself is to eat less meat.

There's actually no evidence for that position that was not produced by someone funded by a meat producer.

I tire of these "prove me wrong" arguments. How about you prove yourself right? Show me that the evidence for that position was all produced by someone funded by a meat producer.

This tactic of yours is frequently used by politicians and other extremist groups and I want to see it stopped.

You get to be the first one. Start researching your position and prove to me that you are right.

How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something.

The question being debated is whether meat was a part of the diet of our ancestors. Whether it's justifiable is a seperate discussion and should not be brought into discussion. Facts don't depend on our moral opinion about them.

No, several questions are being debated. The comment you refer to also asked why eating should be considered evil. And the question of whether or not humans have evolved to eat meat, especially to eat meat anywhere near the levels that Westerners (and increasingly, Easterners) do today. Of course, it has been downmodded because it doesn't comport with the status quo.

The reason I asked for people to justify their eating of meat is that this is the first logical step in any of these debates. It is not up to me to tell you why your behavior is unjustified before you have even attempted to justify it yourself. Of course, whether or not humans evolved to eat is a separate question from whether or not it is moral to cause unnecessary suffering.

You can deride moral beliefs as mere "opinions," but moral propositions -- like all propositions -- contain ontological commitments. Those moral propositions that are founded upon false ontological propositions are bad moral propositions. Opinion doesn't come into that equation. Those who value their own suffering but do not value the suffering of others have breached logic and upheld falsehoods.

Voting me down for saying this:

"How about this: you prove that eating meat is justifiable? That would be something."

Whoever did it, you're realllly smart.

And again! I suppose some people don't believe they should have to justify themselves.

I just saw a bunch of comments basically screaming "YOU prove what YOU said! NO YUO!" back and forth, and downvoted all of you.

Wow. Thanks for reading, I guess.

I realize I have a proof by exhaustion on my hands, so I guess you're right. I wouldn't worry about it too much, my original post will get downvoted into oblivion as soon as the weston price guys wake up.

You are a fool. If you make a claim that demands proof by exhaustion, do not complain about that very fact when someone asks you to back it up.

I like your nick. Sophacles was one of my favorite philosaphers.

Humans did not "evolve eating meat." Yes, they began to eat meat relatively recently, but only during winter periods after migrating into colder climates. Even then, humans ate almost no meat when plant food was abundant, during warmer seasons.

Anatomically the case for human herbivorism, or at least heavy-plant omnivorism, is strong. Check it (I hope this formats okay):

      Meat-eaters: have claws
      Herbivores: no claws
      Humans: no claws

      Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
      Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
      Humans: perspire through skin pores

      Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
      Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
      Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding [we're talking about actually sharp teeth, not so-called human “canine” teeth]

      Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
      Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
      Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

      Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
      Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
      Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

      Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
      Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
      Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

      Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
      Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
      Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Source: A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

So humans don't have a single trait in common with predators? Humans don't have eyes in the front of their head for good depth perception? Or did you just pick a selection of facts to support one viewpoint and ignore anything that contradicts you?

I'm obviously not saying humans don't have a single trait in common with some predators. Humans have blood, for example. Get over your indignation at being challenged and think about what you say. That'd be nice.

To answer your question, these are simply the most clear-cut traits that are present in herbivores versus omnivores and carnivores. The "front-facing eyes" is an out-of-date meme from high school textbooks.

You forgot to add omnivores and opportunistic predators to your analysis. You ignore our very close relatives, chimps, who hunt. You ignore insects as a food source, which were probably important to our ancestors. You are picking and choosing features for convenience.