Originally Posted by meowee
True, but the non-vegan percentage of their diet is no more than 10% and usually closer to 2%. And what you say about dairy is exactly my point... I don't know how you would adjust the years, but human children need dairy (preferably mother's but a substitute animal if not possible) for the same ratio of their lifespan as other primates.
Frankly, I think the ideal human diet matches the primate one. Heavy on dairy in childhood, mostly vegan with a small amount of animal intake in adulthood. But neither vegans nor omnis want to accept that, because 1) it would mean vegans would have to accept eating a small amount of animal products and 2) omnis would have to abandon meat as a frequent meal staple and eat it much more rarely (as in once or twice a month), and, they would have to give up dairy foods as adults.
It is common for the young of a species to eat differently from the adults of that species. I believe there is a type of ant that is carniverous as young but vegan as adults.
Kallyn, this was the quote that I agreed with. My post wasn't a defense of vegetarianism or veganism. I don't think the choices I've made are the right choices for everyone to make. I don't think humankind is meant to be vegan.
My choice was made in response to the post-WWII food economy. I'm reluctant to get too far into what I really think because my opinions are a little extreme, and my heart doesn't always agree with my head. What it boils down to is, the way I think humans should eat and shop and live would require a much smaller human population. I don't want people to starve to death. I don't want plague or massive die-offs. On a personal level, I like living in a big city, I like getting to choose what I eat and never worrying about hunger due to crop failure (or scarce wildlife for hunting), I like using the internet and watching television. But I think we've gone a little out of control, and humans would be better off if there were fewer of us, living in smaller settlements where we were intimately connected with the plants and animals we used for sustenance.
There are disadvantages to that way of living (reduced access to quality health care, increased tribalism, increased xenophobia,) but I think that as far as care of the planet and our species is concerned, the pros outweigh the cons. A large proportion of the human population is completely divorced from all knowledge of food production. We're dependent on oil and dependent on the corporations that rule the global economy. It's dangerous. When the oil supply runs out (or just gets too expensive to use) we're going to be in big trouble. Never in history have the stakes been so high. In the past, if an area experienced drought or plague, or a government fell to war, the danger was only regional. There might be a large loss of life, but it was limited. Now, with developing nations depending on our food supply, and with our country depending on other countries for medical supplies and other imports, billions of people will starve when we run out of oil to run the machines that plant and harvest our crops, not to mention transport them across the country and around the world. What will we do when the grocery stores are empty? We don't know how to make our own food. Most of us will die.
Full disclosure: I don't garden. I've never grown a plant in my life. I have a black thumb, and manage to kill all the plants I bring home, no matter how hard I try. And I do live in a big city, where I'm dependent on grocery stores and produce grown in California and South America. If what I think of as the worst-case-scenario happens, I'll be among the first in this country to starve out of poor location and sheer ignorance. Like I said, my opinions are a little extreme, and my heart doesn't always follow my head.