I know, I KNOW, we are omnivores (you, me, maybe not our llm friends, but most of us)… but that doesn’t quite line up with biological necessity.

I would argue we are facultative omnivores, but obligate carnivores. We can eat plants for efficiency (famines and whatnot), but they are not necessary for life. Meat, however, is necessary - at the very least we would have b vitamin deficiencies without meat, and babies wouldn’t develop into healthy humans without it.

People will argue, and i love you all for it, that maybe this applies historically but in the modern food environment we can engineer our way out of this obligation - sure, that’s true, but when speaking of our species appropriate and native diet - we would still be obligate carnivores

    • psud@aussie.zoneM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      We believe the population was in the low millions. The men ate wichity grubs extracted from an acacia tree nearby.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The men being aboriginal, I’d say I’m not surprised.

        The population was small for the available land mass, then. What is the point to carry from that?

        • psud@aussie.zoneM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Millions is pretty big numbers for a stone age population in an arid country like this.