It implies that vegeterian diets are harmful and/or suboptimal in all kinds of unforeseen ways, because we haven’t evolved to tolerate them, let along optimize for them.
I take your point, though I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the fact that our ancestors were dietary omnivores implies that vegetarianism is sub-optimal. Our evolutionary history is not by any means sure to provide us with optimal dietary behaviors or digestive processes.
But to argue that our ancestors were dietary omnivores is a criticism of vegetarianism.
Only if you make a few extra assumptions which may or may not be correct, and may or may not also apply to monogamy. (Or commit the naturalistic fallacy.)
But to argue that our ancestors were dietary omnivores is a criticism of vegetarianism.
One man’s modus ponens...
How so?
It implies that vegeterian diets are harmful and/or suboptimal in all kinds of unforeseen ways, because we haven’t evolved to tolerate them, let along optimize for them.
I take your point, though I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the fact that our ancestors were dietary omnivores implies that vegetarianism is sub-optimal. Our evolutionary history is not by any means sure to provide us with optimal dietary behaviors or digestive processes.
Only if you make a few extra assumptions which may or may not be correct, and may or may not also apply to monogamy. (Or commit the naturalistic fallacy.)