Are you really trying to argue that humans are meant to be vegans because of some 5 million year old bones? Did it ever occur to you that perhaps we evolved from primarily herbivore to a more omnivorous species because it was advantageous and provided more energy gains as well as supported larger brain growth? Humans didn't accidentally become omnivores, they evolved as so over the last million of years because it was an advantage. And I don't know about you, but I see nothing to envy in going backwards to a ancient diet and becoming more chimp like. Humans have become supremely successful as the top omnivore species. Granted, there could be improvements to our meat farming methods.
People are mostly meant to be vegans, because we can and have the brains and capacity for moral understanding, so we understand how deplorable unnecessary suffering is. Why I am bringing up our herbivore specialization is because many of the diseases of affluence can be attributed to the (over) consumption of animal products. My argument is that even when we adapted to eating animal products, our herbivore specialization remained active. Now happypup will have us believe there are no true herbivores at all, or they are extremely rare. Whatever is the truth regarding that, it's beyond the point I am arguing. We have a lot of medical data that support the notion that many components of for example meat are harmful to our health. I'd claim that is to do because of our herbivorous evolutionary origins as Hominids, and also because of the CMAH mutation, that causes a lot of animal products to cause inflammatory responses in us. So while we can eat animal products, it's very questionable to how desirable this is. In light of all this, is it wise to keep describing ourselves as (true) omnivores?
I have already pointed out that our omnivore capabilities increase our short-term survivability, it's viable enough for us to reproduce on etc. But now that humans are increasing their lifespans a lot of the problems involved with the consumption of animal products are becoming more clear.
As for our increase in brain mass, there are multiple theories on this, one possible explanation is that when we started cooking our foods, it became easier to consume large amounts of plants. There is no consensus on the notion that eating meat gave rise to larger human brains.
See also
Nathaniel Dominy PhD. and the True Human Diet
Yes, some Hominids did specialize in grass, as evidenced by their teeth, but these our cousin species and not direct ancestors.
As to our specialist roots, we don't have specialized herbivory digestion. We are hind gut fermenters, meaning the bacteria and fungus that breaks down cellulose is after most of our nutrient absorption takes place, That is also poorly developed in humans. Certainly we can tackle fruits, nuts and greens, but many carnivores also can and do eat these things as well.
As to how widespread these herbivores eating meat really is, it is quite common.
Most likely it is a combination of getting easy access to mineral rich foods, but the truth about being wild is you are always hungry, and any opportunity to eat something, no matter what will be exploited when the hunger is high enough.
For this reason lions have been known to eat grass and deer have been known to eat dead deer.
Even your article suggests a good 10% of these early hominids diet (around 4 million years ago) was meat.
I am not disagreeing with you that humans were exploring a stricter herbivorous lifestyle, some even became quite specialized, but around the 4 million year mark it was those human ancestors that increased their meat intake, that became hunters that succeeded. It was the increase in meat, and the complexities of hunting that facilitated our development. Tracking likely lead to abstract thought, eating meat meant less time foraging for edibles making more time for the development of tools and culture and art.
This has no bearing on what we should be now, because it is all really just interesting facts.
Now I don't prescribe to an absolute moral authority, and have no moral qualms with eating other animals, as they have not been instilled in me, nor do I find them at all relevant.
Even still, I feel a herbivourous diet, should be adopted, and evolution alongside our technology will allow us to far more efficiently feed all of humanity in time.
Much of what I've written in response to Prost could be said in response to your post.
It's probably not eating meat and hunting, but much more the cooking of our food, whatever it might have been exactly, that freed up time for further human development in multiple ways.
I disagree our mainly herbivore past doesn't have a bearing in the present, because evolution in many ways is a slowly process. And the strong case you have made thus far is that many herbivores can display omnivore behavior. What I'm saying is that the human probably is better described as a herbivore that has successfully utilized omnivore behavior to increase overall survivability. But in this modern age of relative abundance, these same omnivore behaviors are actually hurting our health.
As for morality, humans tend to agree when ethical principles are simple. It's when we increase the complexity that it becomes harder to find a consensus. But this is mostly because morality is probably dependent on a lot of complex factors, meaning it will be seemingly relative in many unique scenario's. I would however argue this can be all be developed from extrapolating these primary basic principles. The problem then lies in calculating all the ramifications and vectors of a certain action. This leads many people to simply conclude there is no absolute morality or that it's all subjective. But I strongly disagree.
Simply put morality denotes for me the course of action that leads to the highest optimum for all those involved.
So if we would accept that definition and return to the eating and exploitation of animals, it's easy to see how and why it's immoral. Because it's harmful for our health, it's harmful for the environment and most importantly harmful for the exploited animals themselves. Especially for us in the developed world, who have so many alternatives. I'd say it's completely unjustifiable.
