No human is supposed to eat meat. My most obvious argument is the simple fact that we have to cook it or else we get sick. Sashimi comes is specially prepared, and does not come from Africa, where the first humans came from. Also, our intestines are too long. The number one killer of people who choose to eat meat is atheros chlorosis or clogged arteries. The meat takes so long to pass through our bodies that we absorb too much fat. Natural meat eaters never clog their arteries.
We aren't supposed to eat meat because we must cook it? So, we cannot use technology, (cooking is a technology) to improve our lives? That's like saying you're not supposed to debate online for the simple fact that you must use technology. Basically, your first two arguments say that we wouldn't eat meat if we lacked intelligence. But did our intelligence not come naturally? We are at the top of many food chains, and the natural cycle would be seriously disrupted if we stopped eating animals. As a side-point, The Bible does allow eating meat, and so do most other religions. Thanks!
I included the part about cooking the meat to show that our bodies cannot take the meat. When we first evolved to be homo sapiens, we were not intelligent enough to cook it. We evolved to be able to cook it, and society evolved to eat and sell meat but we are still unable to safely consume it raw. The food chain would not be disrupted; over 90% of the animals we eat are bread and raised to be eaten and are not roaming freely or eating other animals. And your side point is almost completely irrelevant and would belong under religion, not health. But if you really want to bring it in, the Bible says not to kill.
It was natural for humans to evolve to get intelligence to learn to cook and eat meat. Sure, it was unnatural for humans to eat meat when we lacked intelligence. I fail to see how unintelligent-subhumans lacking the intelligence to cook have anything to do with the topic. And the Bible is full of instances of Gad COMMANDING people to eat, and He placed power over the animals in the hands of humanity. That's a side point, and let's ignore that. Thank you.
Yes, we naturally got the intelligence to make ovens and weapons for hunting meat. But just because our we can do something does not mean we should do it. Like we have the technology for roofies, but we don't "natrually" need to rape.
Here are more points about our physiology. Humans have weak nails and small canine teeth. Carnivores have sharp claws and large canine teeth to tear flesh. Like other herbivores" teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars. Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their stomach acid. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison. Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal fast. Humans" intestinal tracts are much longer.
Also, our brain is equally against eating meat. Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood. Most humans are revolted by the sight of blood.
Where do we get our protein? You can get plenty of protein from plants.
First of all-We also have the technology for protection against rape. Second of all, you're seperating humans from carnivores in your argument. That's wrong. Humans are carnivores. We specially prepare our meat, discrediting your molar, stomach acid, and intestine points. For your blood point, we naturally pick out people to kill the animals for eating who are fine by it (used to be tribal hunting parties, now hunters and farmers), In conclusion, there are really no good points for the statement "humans are not supposed to eat meat", However, there were plenty of good points against it. Thank you for the debate.