Harder meaning 'more inconvenient' with our food supply infrastructure. The proof of the (vegan) pudding is in the eating and there are many vegans living and indeed thriving, healthy lives
Yes of course. Obviously if I lived in a place where the majority of society is vegan it wouldn't be hard at all.
Homo sapiens sapiens emerged between 200-300,000 years ago so we are essentially the same as those hominids.
From a DNA perspective perhaps but maybe not in so many other respects.
Is there evidence for that; insect carapaces in human settlements for example, or is this conjecture?
First of all there's common sense in that insects are high in protein, our closest relatives -- primates -- eat insects plus the fact that even some modern humans eat insects. And with a quick Internet query it seems there is substantial evidence:
- Early Hominins and Tool Use: Evidence shows that early hominins like Australopithecus robustus used bone tools to extract termites from mounds, indicating insect consumption during the Late Pliocene and Early Pleistocene periods in South Africa
- Coprolites (Fossilized Feces): Analysis of prehistoric human coprolites from caves in the USA, Mexico, and Peru has revealed insect remains, such as chitinous exoskeletons, suggesting direct consumption of ants, beetle larvae, grasshoppers, and other insects
- Cave Art and Archaeological Evidence: Cave art in locations like Altamira in Spain and Les Trois Frères in France depicts insects alongside other food sources, hinting at their dietary significance. Engravings of edible insects and wild bee nests further support this
- Nutritional Value: Insects were likely consumed for their abundance and high protein content before humans developed hunting tools or agricultural practices. This aligns with findings that early hominins relied on insects for protein before becoming proficient hunters
- Biblical References: Historical texts such as the Bible mention insect consumption, including locusts as part of the diet in ancient Hebrew culture
The size of the population of Homo sapiens sapiens was very, very small and only started increasing with the transition from hunter/gathers to an agrarian culture. This is accounted for by availability of food. I think it's safe to say we were sufficiently hungry to put us off procreating (!) and/or to feed the young into adulthood.
I think it's safe to say they were resource-constrained. That is, they couldn't easily maintain larger populations in a migratory society given the length of time children need to be nurtured and other factors such as disease and high mortality rates. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were constantly starving as you said.
I'm not sure what you're trying to saying here. Incidentally, my gastroenterologist friend has been awarded £2million grant to research into altering the gut biome in alcoholics with…faecal transplants
The preliminary data are very significant!
I'm saying that you're saying that we are basically unchanged from early humans, I assume you are saying this because our DNA is the same. After the discovery of DNA people used to think that all of our traits are either innate or learned (nature vs nurture). But it turns out it's much more complex than that. Even with the same DNA, genes can express themselves difficulty depending on the environment. And not only that, the changes can be passed down to one's children. For example they found that extreme famine survivors had changes that were passed down to their children and grandchildren. (Look up epigenetics). And speaking of gut biome, we've learned that this has a huge influence on our health and bodies. In fact somebody was just telling me about this
Netflix documentary where a woman tried fecal transplants to help with IBS. It helped but she developed an acne problem that the donor had. She switched donors and developed depression that the other donor had.
So I don't think it's logically correct to say that because ancient humans were mostly vegetarian and our DNA is basically the same as theirs, then we should also be mostly vegetarian. We are quite different from them in terms of environment, gut biomes, etc.
The are many good reasons to be vegetarian but this is not one of them.
I thought it was obvious that I was asking a sarcastic question.
If you want to be obvious you need to add an emoji.
I know you don't need meat to survive LOL, my mom is a vegetarian. It just seems so utterly stupid to not eat meat that unless you have some kind of digestion disorder that prevents you from eating meat, I'll just automatically group you with those idiots who say killing animals and eating them is murder, LOL.
This just shows you're not very well educated. If you actually looked into it you'd probably find that it's much more "stupid" to eat meat than not. And I say that as a meat eater. From just about any standpoint -- ethical, environmental, health -- vegetarian beats meat. Really the only thing meat wins is taste.
I have no doubt that when 'contact day' finally happens and intelligent life finally visits us on earth, they'll eat us
In general we assume the more advanced we get the less warlike and less likely to kill to eat we become. At least all the science fiction movies seem to think so. I may have seen this first here. I don't remember.
