The Best Speech Ever Made

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

This a link to a speech made by Gary Yourofsky, you may or may not have heard of him but he is very much involved in animal rights, and is a strong believer in veganism.

I know a lot of people on this forum ask what kind of diet is best for them, in this video Yourofsky explains why a vegan diet is best suited to humans, and why such things as dairy and meat were never meant for human consumption.

You may not agree with him from an ethical point of view, but i would be shocked if you watched this video and did not consider some things you previously thought about diet.

If for no other reason everyone should watch and take notes on his public speaking skills.

Hope you all enjoy!

Seems like another propaganda speaker to me. I didn't watch the whole thing, I skipped around a bit, but one part in particular ruined his whole point.

Here he is talking about the four biggest factors that cause the worst diseases and cancers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4&t=2084

Saturated fat? Cholesterol? It's been proven time and time again that these harm us in no way at all. He makes no justification as to why saturated fat is a bad thing, which proves he is only against it because it's the mainstream idea. He says animal products only raise the "bad" cholesterol? What he doesn't seem to understand is that HDL and LDL are proteins that carry cholesterol, and that there is only one kind of cholesterol itself: cholesterol. And elevated blood cholesterol level is not a problem in itself, it is your body's way of keeping you alive when there IS a problem, and has no relation to dietary consumption.

I've heard about naturally occurring trans fatty acids, and I've also heard that these are the few healthy ones. Hydrogenated vegetable oils are vegan friendly, he seems to make no mention of that.

Acidic animal protein? Your thyroid does much more to regulate blood pH than the food you eat.

Satan, glad you took the time to watch it.

I'm going to watch it again and make note of the points at which he puts forth his main arguments because it is a long video and I don't expect every one to watch all of it so bear with me on that.

I don't honestly think he is a propaganda speaker, by all accounts he tours u.s university's and schools off his own back and does not get any monetary compensation from said establishments but does it because he truly believes what he is saying.

The one part that really caught my attention was the part about the human intestines and mouth which shares no qualities with those of carnivorous beasts. He says that our intestines share the same qualities as that of other herbivores in the wild, further reinforcing the idea that we as humans should not consume animal products.

If you have a chance please watch the whole thing!

It is a really interesting video, of

I agree with his ethnic/moral values which was the only strong part of his argument to me, it does appear like only the most ignorant scum of the earth would be willing to work in these slaughter house facilities and torture these animals. On another note, obviously humans historically, even in the healthiest of societies, ate meat, especially fish ( think of the Eskimos whom never had heart disease etc.) the problem is we are eating animals whom are unnaturally raised, tortured, poisoned, processed and terribly sick and the essence of that meat goes into us. The other reason meat is negative for many people is due to the amount, we are consuming it on average 2 or 3 times a day instead of what I find to be more natural, which would be 2 or 3 times a week. I don't like vegan soy based products, most soy in this country is gmo, and gmo's are probably just as harmful as the bad meats. I personally do eat high quality eggs every day and see no reason not to, eggs are very nutritious, and I don't find eating eggs contributes as directly to animal cruelty. As far as meat I only eat organic chicken and wild caught fish, I don't touch dairy, and it'd be very rare if I were to eat red meat (grass fed buffalo/deer) but I do believe most (80%) of our diet should be fruits, nuts, seeds, and vegetables... Everything within moderation, everything with in balance, but the problem is the human population is too large for there to be moderation, and too far out of balance thus humans more or less are exhibiting 'cancerous' properties on this planet...What goes around comes around....

I agree with him strongly on his morals and ethics too, but i know that for a lot of people it can put them off when they think its a speech trying to get people to go vegan. Most immediately assume its some hippy trying to save the planet or something...

True, most people eat far too much meat, especially in the states, i think a vegan diet is ideal as humans don't NEED meat, we can get all of our nutrients from the fruits of the land, the same place the cows and pigs etc. get theirs.

I have been veggie for about 6 months now, i do occasionally eat fish so i guess pecatarian would be more apt. I don't miss meat too much, apart from the convenience i guess.

Going veggie or vegan demands a whole lifestyle change, we as westerners can easily do it, eskimos not so much.

Glad you watched it, i'm going to try and follow a vegan diet by the end of the year, and i hope that a few others who watch will be inspired to do so too!

Have you ever heard people say that our DNA is about 98.5% identical to a chimpanzee's? Naturally, people's reactions are to say, "Wow, that 1.5% difference sure makes all the difference." The problem is it has almost nothing to do with that 1.5%. It has everything to do with epigenetics. The only difference between us and our chimpanzee relatives is how those nearly identical sets of genes are being expressed. Which are turned on, which are turned off. And that has everything to do with changes to our environment, including our diets. The evolution of the first proto-humans had to do with our deviation away from an all plant diet. We once lived in trees, similar to the modern chimpanzee, and ate a diet of almost entirely fruit. At some point we took to scavenging, eating dead caracasses we were able to find. There must have been some type of inherent survival benefit in eating this material, our adaptation to it saw us change dramatically and at some point the use of tools was discovered. This use of tools significantly changed our evolution also, and if anybody ever asks you why we don't have sharp teeth and claws (as evidence for the fact we shound't eat meat), your answer is that we evolved using tools, for hunting and fishing. It was perhaps that addition of fish and sea creatures to the diet that may have had the largest impact in leading to the development of a human brain, the high n-3 fatty acid content had everything to do with this.

So you see, for everybody out there who thinks the vegan/vegetarian diet is "what is meant for us" is denying the fact that the very thing that makes you human, that separates you from lesser primates, is the animal products that entered your diet long ago. The very fact that we were dealing with nearly identical genomes, yet the addition of animal foods produced a more fit/intelligent organism says that in animal food, we discovered a more optimal food. And this is because of epigenetics. Without the addition of these new stimuli, we might very well have evolved along the same lines as the rest. They also ignore the fact that this means animal products are an inherently more bio-available food source. We assimilate nutrients from animal products far better than plants. This doesn't mean I don't think vegetation is important, I do. It still has a lot of micronutrients and the fiber feed gut bacteria. But I hate when I see people talking about how "natural" a vegan diet is, and I'd like to know just what the hell they mean. Especially the raw vegans. Because naturally, human beings and their predecessors have been consuming meat products, and cooking for about the last 100,000 years. That said, meat today isn't what it was then, but then again, neither are most commercialized plants. And just because some companies treat animals poorly is a very poor reason to not eat animals. Its throwing hte baby out with the bathwater again. Boycot the companies, not all animal products.

I agree with J987 about the quality of the meat. Most meat the population consumes comes from sick animals and is cooked on top of that. Cooking the meat damages the lipids and deactivates some vitamins, basically altering it to the point where it is harmful for us. I eat plenty of raw wild caught fish and I love it.

I think it's good to look at what our evolutionary precursors are eating. Monkeys and chimps do eat eggs, they can fish, and while most of them can't kill a big animal on their own, they will eat fresh meat if something else left it around. I think the biggest evidence against a vegan diet being appropriate for us is human breast milk. Technically an animal product. It contains fat, cholesterol, and "acidic animal protein", like any other animal milk. I don't consume dairy products because I don't believe the milk of another animal is right for us, but breast milk from a healthy mother is the best thing to raise a baby on.

Plant protein is also much less bioavailable to humans, unlike true herbivores. Many people poorly convert beta carotene to vitamin A and must rely on meat (which is why vitamin A supplements should always come from some kind of liver oil).

schpiloch123 wrote:I agree with him strongly on his morals and ethics too, but i know that for a lot of people it can put them off when they think its a speech trying to get people to go vegan. Most immediately assume its some hippy trying to save the planet or something...

True, most people eat far too much meat, especially in the states, i think a vegan diet is ideal as humans don't NEED meat, we can get all of our nutrients from the fruits of the land, the same place the cows and pigs etc. get theirs.

I have been veggie for about 6 months now, i do occasionally eat fish so i guess pecatarian would be more apt.

Pecatarian sounds reasonable, probably the farthest I could ever go away from the meat eating side.
The real point is more people need to think for themselves and stop going along with whatever the current trend or their programming
tells them too. We should stay open minded and proceed logically for the best of everything on this planet, and stop living irresponsible lives that only deprive our land and set up a depleted and toxic environment for our future populations. Among many other, there are some real serious problems we turn a blinds eye to in the meat industry, and i am also willing to bet that almost half the people who devour these animals thoughtlessly would probably be appalled if they were given a tour through American slaughter houses and actually seen,smelled,felt what went on first hand in these facilities where they are choosing to get their "protein".
But there are still more humane, healthier, and less cruel options of getting meat, it just should not be abused with our excessive consumption habits, we don't need as much meat as we think we do.
I hope the consciousness shift of the world continues to progress and that more people end some of the madness going on on this planet, there's much work to do...

"It was perhaps that addition of fish and sea creatures to the diet that may have had the largest impact in leading to the development of a human brain, the high n-3 fatty acid content had everything to do with this."


Very good point, however we are not the only creatures that eat the meat of other animals and we are not the only animals that eat fish.

So why haven't bears evolved into 'intelligent' beings, or other animals for that matter?

If we had evolved to eat meat we would have short intestines at least.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:It was perhaps that addition of fish and sea creatures to the diet that may have had the largest impact in leading to the development of a human brain, the high n-3 fatty acid content had everything to do with this.

Strongly agree with this. I think we've all been on youtube and seen how many videos there are of some very young Asian children playing piano or violin like someone who has been playing for 20 years, or heard of the "Asians are smart" stereotype in general. Coincidentally, their diets contain a lot more fish than other parts of the world, not to mention higher iodine intake.

Satan wrote:

Strongly agree with this. I think we've all been on youtube and seen how many videos there are of some very young Asian children playing piano or violin like someone who has been playing for 20 years, or heard of the "Asians are smart" stereotype in general. Coincidentally, their diets contain a lot more fish than other parts of the world, not to mention higher iodine intake.

I think that's a slightly weak argument, many asian families are far more strict, and instill a hard work ethic in their children from a young age.

If what you said was true then all other predominantly fish eating cultures would also display the ame skill set as said asian 'prodigies'

schpiloch123 wrote:"It was perhaps that addition of fish and sea creatures to the diet that may have had the largest impact in leading to the development of a human brain, the high n-3 fatty acid content had everything to do with this."


Very good point, however we are not the only creatures that eat the meat of other animals and we are not the only animals that eat fish.

So why haven't bears evolved into 'intelligent' beings, or other animals for that matter?

If we had evolved to eat meat we would have short intestines at least.

Schpiloch, that is a very good question. It would be the very next question I would ask also. The problem is we can't jump between species like this and maintain the same conditions. I am not familiar with the evolutionary biology of bears so I can't really comment here. But the fact that we know that humans and primates have an early shared ancestry allows us to examine what might have caused the epigenetic changes that took place that caused the tangental evolution of proto-humans. And it was largely the change toward consuming animal products that did this. So it really doesn't matter what any other animal on earth is eating, all that matters is that we know that for humans, animal products have contributed to the evolution of more advanced brains and cognitive functions. Whether or not this serves as evidence that animal products are optimal, is up to you. This is all just observational. We have no way of scientifically proving that animal products were responsible. Its only correlational, but inuitively we can say that there were probabilistically very few other changes that would have had a greater impact than this change in diet (other more significant environmental changes would have influenced all life, not just humans). That is unless alien life had something to do with the emergence of human beings, or at least some type of grand intervention. Now I sound like that guy from ancient aliens with the hair. But my point is, its all observational, but for me, it is strong enough evidence that animal products have played a huge role in the evolution of the human race, and we are adapted to eating them. It suggests, that in animal products, human beings found a more optimum food for them as a species. And as far as having short intestines, not necessarily. We have to consider the role that vegetation continued to play in our diets. Our co-evolution with our gut bacteria has been vitally important to the human species and the fiber contained in plant food feeds these organisms. We are certainly omnivorous and I believe fruit has continued to be an important food for us. Our digestive systems are very advanced and sensitive, and are able to handle an assortment of foods. This is evidenced by the content of our digestive enzymes. We selectively release different enzymes depending on the contents of each specific meal. There's no question we're adapted to eating meat.

I thought this was the best speech ever made

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK2WJd5bXFg

We should also point to the fat-soluble vitamins. In addition to the fatty acids, we would have now had a viable food source of bioavailable A & D, which CS and Littlefighter pointed out a long time ago have significant synergistic effects when consumed this way. You cannot get this from plants. A good part of the population has trouble converting beta carotene into retinol, something else suggestive of our movement away from plant material to animal food. There always seems to be a bell curve when it comes to tolerance or adaptation to certain foods, but given the prevalence of this conversion problem, it either suggests A) plants containing beta carotene represent a new food or B) epigenetically, we've become better tailored to obtaining the hormonal form of vitamin A directly. Since plant foods aren't a new food, it would suggest human beings have become better adapted to assimilating nutrients from animal food.

I believe all cultures and societies ate some amounts of meat but it was probably typically more of a specialty food and not served with every meal like we do today. Although if you consider diets by area, European diet ( colder climates) would have more meat and less vegetation, especially through the winter. Were as a tropical or an African diet may have much less meat and more vegetation and nuts and seeds and fruit etc. African and oriental genetics are horrible at digesting dairy btw, and more likely lactose intolerant because it wasn't in their evolutionary requirements, were as Europeans generally have no problem with this as meat, and dairy was much more dominant in their survival. Climate aside, perhaps diet by region also affected physical and mental characteristics of a set of people. As I recall, doesn't meat diets lower shbg and increase free testosterone? Thus meat eaters could naturally be more aggressive, and ambitious, were as a strict plant eater would have less free testosterone and be more passive of a life form as we see in herbivorous animals.. So maybe humans who exhibited high flesh diets exhibited viking like characteristics? Or maybe African tribes who strived on more meat were more war based than the vegetarian tribes? Idk I'm rambling, something Id assume is that Africans, orientals and/or islanders didnt deal too much with red meat, and if they did it was of very lean type.Therefore I think high amounts of vegetable variety, nuts, seed, fruit, and fish are key to a healthy diet and in my opinion I think the orientals have the best diet for longevity and balance of the human body..

Haha. A cow isn't going to do shit to save me.

I can't stand it when people make a moral argument for avoiding meat. Does a lion take flak from his more conscientious friends for being immoral when he kills a gazelle? Let's get real, there is no morality to nature or evolution.

Not to mention these people really have no understanding about many of the animals they are referring to. They are under the mistaken belief that if we would just let them alone they would go about a happy, uninterrupted life in the wild. Take cows, for example. The domestication of the cow represented a pact between the cow and human beings. In return for slaughtering the cow at a specific point in time in order to nourish ourselves, the cow was given food, shelter, and protection such that it could be ensured to reproduce and achieve its own genetic/biological goals here on earth. Without domestication, the cow would likely have been wiped off the earth fairly quickly. Consider it, as compared to some of its relatives, the cow is relatively poorly adapted to life in the wild. Clumsy, lumbering, fairly slow animals. Things like domestication have influenced the evolution of both humans and animals for the better. Both species benefitted immensely from this non-verbal pact. So people touting how they are people too are missing the point entirely and are ignorant of the evolutionary pressures that have led to these conditions.

Chickens and pigs, referring to the domesticated species, are no different. Compare them to their more feral counterparts, the wild hogs and birds like the grouse. They aren't anywhere near as adapted. They too have benefitted immensely from human domestication. People thinking the fact they are slaughtered for meat is the worst thing in the world for these animals and that it cuts off what would be a long, prosperous life. Not the case. The only reason these animals have carried on is the fact we have ensured their ability to replicate.

So I guess let's go ahead and let everything go. Send them into the world and take down the fences. See what happens to them on their own and all of these people will soon realize its like setting a chihuahua into the wild.

Actually Cows live just fine all over India and they are not domesticated (or eaten).

I think that guy is really good speaker and makes alot of valid points. I very rarely eat meat and will probably give it up completely soon. But fish and especially fish oil and CLO I will have a real challenge giving up because it is so beneficial, and dont really see a worthy
alternative source.

We should make a thread about our favourite sources of vegan protein.

I think you are talking about the guar, and I believe it is actually a buffalo. And its numbers are only stable in protected areas so they aren't killed for their meat but they are domesticated to a degree, as they are revered as holy. This doesn't indicate survivability, only a cultural/semantic reason to keep them alive. There are only a few breeds of wild cattle in the world. Examples include the american bison, water buffalo, cape buffalo, and african buffalo. And with the exception of the African species, mainly those in the region of the congo, many are endangered, i.e. aren't adapted for a modern world. Both the males and females of these species have large horns, and males are very aggressive. The domesticated cattle have been selectively bred to bring out certain qualities, i.e. increased milk production and docility. This is an evolutionary arrangement. In exchange for our capacity to keep them alive and allow them to breed, they are killed for the nourishment they provide. Without this relationship, these creatures would be wiped out fairly quickly if put into any of the environments that modern wild cattle still exist. The mistake people make is to think we've taken these animals captive and are preventing them from living natural lives in "happiness".

What are your reasons for wanting to give up fish and fish oil? There are very few good arguments for wanting to do this, and the only one I would ever use is the fact that our oceans are totally overfished. So its more of an ecological reason, not a moral one.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Haha. A cow isn't going to do shit to save me.

I can't stand it when people make a moral argument for avoiding meat. Does a lion take flak from his more conscientious friends for being immoral when he kills a gazelle? Let's get real, there is no morality to nature or evolution.

Not to mention these people really have no understanding about many of the animals they are referring to. They are under the mistaken belief that if we would just let them alone they would go about a happy, uninterrupted life in the wild. Take cows, for example. The domestication of the cow represented a pact between the cow and human beings. In return for slaughtering the cow at a specific point in time in order to nourish ourselves, the cow was given food, shelter, and protection such that it could be ensured to reproduce and achieve its own genetic/biological goals here on earth. Without domestication, the cow would likely have been wiped off the earth fairly quickly. Consider it, as compared to some of its relatives, the cow is relatively poorly adapted to life in the wild. Clumsy, lumbering, fairly slow animals. Things like domestication have influenced the evolution of both humans and animals for the better. Both species benefitted immensely from this non-verbal pact. So people touting how they are people too are missing the point entirely and are ignorant of the evolutionary pressures that have led to these conditions.

Chickens and pigs, referring to the domesticated species, are no different. Compare them to their more feral counterparts, the wild hogs and birds like the grouse. They aren't anywhere near as adapted. They too have benefitted immensely from human domestication. People thinking the fact they are slaughtered for meat is the worst thing in the world for these animals and that it cuts off what would be a long, prosperous life. Not the case. The only reason these animals have carried on is the fact we have ensured their ability to replicate.

So I guess let's go ahead and let everything go. Send them into the world and take down the fences. See what happens to them on their own and all of these people will soon realize its like setting a chihuahua into the wild.

Cpio you clearly didn't listen to a word he said.

The point he makes that you are referring to actually is that humans have not evolved to eat meat. We share no similarities with carnivorous creatures, we do not have sharp teeth, nor do we have short intestines. We also have a mouth that masticates side to side, not up and down.

Your point about the lion is ridiculous. Lions eat meat that they hunt and eat raw. When was the last time you went out into the wild and chase down a cow, and ate it along with its hide and organs?

I could carry on, but I think that should do for now, I would reccomend you watch it again and LISTEN carefully to what he says.

I'm sorry buddy but you made yourself look like a bit of a knob on this one...

A knob. Haha. Schpiloch, I've never heard someone use that term before but I like it, and I guess I'm willing to take that chance now and again.

I wasn't trying to compare human beings to lions. The point of that statement was to say that animals kill other animals in nature all of the time, and there is no morality about it. Why are humans exempt? What moral imperative is there for us to think we are above this?

The point about domestication was only to show that the idea of maintaining an animal for its eventual slaughter isn't immoral in any way. Again, it represents an important pact between humans and these animals that has influenced how humans have evolved, providing us benefit of not having to go hunt for all of our food. The benefits to the animal have already been mentioned.

For the better part of human history, we did hunt and kill animals, and what does the fact we didn't eat them raw have to do with anything? The advent of cooking was a huge part of human evolutionary history and significantly affected the way our immune systems and digestive systems adapted to food consumption. Cooking eliminates many harmful chemicals found in vegetation, and makes many components of both animals and plants more digestible.

To touch on the point you made about our similarities to carnivores, there is a good reason why we don't have sharp teeth or claws. Its because of our discovering the ability to use tools. Technology has had very important consequences for our evolution. Tools eliminated our need for sharp teeth. The kills we made and the dressing of meat were all achieved with tools. This probably made it more survivable to adapt teeth characteristic of an omnivore with a subset of them capable of tearing and others meant for grinding plant material. Again, we are omnivores, and our teeth are suggestive of this. Our lack of a short intestine is also suggestive of this. Given our vital relationship with our gut flora, their maintenance is critical and we feed them with fiber. Our guts are adapted to both meat and vegetation, but moreso for the former.

Regarding veganism there is one definite fact: on every measure it is better when it comes to the environment.

schpiloch123 wrote:

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Haha. A cow isn't going to do shit to save me.

I can't stand it when people make a moral argument for avoiding meat. Does a lion take flak from his more conscientious friends for being immoral when he kills a gazelle? Let's get real, there is no morality to nature or evolution.

Not to mention these people really have no understanding about many of the animals they are referring to. They are under the mistaken belief that if we would just let them alone they would go about a happy, uninterrupted life in the wild. Take cows, for example. The domestication of the cow represented a pact between the cow and human beings. In return for slaughtering the cow at a specific point in time in order to nourish ourselves, the cow was given food, shelter, and protection such that it could be ensured to reproduce and achieve its own genetic/biological goals here on earth. Without domestication, the cow would likely have been wiped off the earth fairly quickly. Consider it, as compared to some of its relatives, the cow is relatively poorly adapted to life in the wild. Clumsy, lumbering, fairly slow animals. Things like domestication have influenced the evolution of both humans and animals for the better. Both species benefitted immensely from this non-verbal pact. So people touting how they are people too are missing the point entirely and are ignorant of the evolutionary pressures that have led to these conditions.

Chickens and pigs, referring to the domesticated species, are no different. Compare them to their more feral counterparts, the wild hogs and birds like the grouse. They aren't anywhere near as adapted. They too have benefitted immensely from human domestication. People thinking the fact they are slaughtered for meat is the worst thing in the world for these animals and that it cuts off what would be a long, prosperous life. Not the case. The only reason these animals have carried on is the fact we have ensured their ability to replicate.

So I guess let's go ahead and let everything go. Send them into the world and take down the fences. See what happens to them on their own and all of these people will soon realize its like setting a chihuahua into the wild.

Cpio you clearly didn't listen to a word he said.

The point he makes that you are referring to actually is that humans have not evolved to eat meat. We share no similarities with carnivorous creatures, we do not have sharp teeth, nor do we have short intestines. We also have a mouth that masticates side to side, not up and down.

Your point about the lion is ridiculous. Lions eat meat that they hunt and eat raw. When was the last time you went out into the wild and chase down a cow, and ate it along with its hide and organs?

I could carry on, but I think that should do for now, I would reccomend you watch it again and LISTEN carefully to what he says.

I'm sorry buddy but you made yourself look like a bit of a knob on this one...

Humans evolved to eat meat. We evolved the greatest hunting tool of all; a massive brain.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:

I wasn't trying to compare human beings to lions. The point of that statement was to say that animals kill other animals in nature all of the time, and there is no morality about it. Why are humans exempt? What moral imperative is there for us to think we are above this?

The point about domestication was only to show that the idea of maintaining an animal for its eventual slaughter isn't immoral in any way. Again, it represents an important pact between humans and these animals that has influenced how humans have evolved, providing us benefit of not having to go hunt for all of our food. The benefits to the animal have already been mentioned.

humans are exempt because our "developed" brain has the capacity to process and understand complex emotions and thought processes that virtually no single animal has the ability to display them all. Humans can rationalize behaviors, form opinions, remember and write down important facts such as how to grow the most fertile vegetation, think of the future needs, and adapt using our brains. Humans have the ability to comprehend emotion pain, where as most animals can not. This is why you have so many protestors in support of employing proper animal welfare. A lion does not think about killing a gazelle for immoral reasons because a lion doesn't "think," it gets hungry and needs to feed its cubs because it doesn't know the next time it will eat.

No one would advocate letting animals, such as cows and chickens brought up in pens and 4x6 pens in their own feces, to be able to survive if they were just let go. They would have no idea how to survive after so many generations of being forced into unnatural habitats. Thats not the point here. Animals are capable of feeling pain and that is what most people think is wrong, other then the fact of murder.

Matter of fact to specifically address your point on humans' larger brains... notice how above I said most animals can not process complex human like emotions. An amazing example is the Elephant. The first point is that elephants have always been herbivores (and they are damn well massive). More so, elephants have one of the largest brains on land and is similar to structure and complexity of a human brain; while some researchers link human and elephant brain growth as convergent evolution. the whole meat eating theory does not explain why elephants have these brains which can comprehend grief, mimicry, compassion and can harbor intelligence and humor. All of these features and the 4000kg elephant never touches meat. Just facts.

Abc the evidence would suggest otherwise. Since when does having a big brain mean that we evolved to eat meat? Do you have evidence?

I can understand the importance of fish in a diet as seafood contains nutrients that are hard to find on the earth. But I think what many forget is that the meat that we eat is really just a filter for food that we could eat ourselves. Why do we need to filter corn grains and grass through an animal? Why can't we skip that step and just eat the food that they eat?

Your being stupid if you consider meat vital, yes it's easier to eat meat and more convenient, but then so is taking propecia and minoxidil...

Do you have a pipe?