"Vegans: If people aren't supposed to eat meat, why do we have canine teeth?"
I'm not one of the vegans or vegetarians in this section however the whole why do we have canine teeth, argument is a flawed one as a part of why we eat meat. Even a great many of the herbivores has canine teeth. That tiny bit of fact means little. However we modern humans, evolved from a small lemur like creature that existed millions of years ago. That lemur like animal that ate insects as well as plant matter. Over time different subspecies resulted as a divergence, and the adaptability of those early predecessors, to ALL of the modern primates.
Over the epochs of time, there has been other divergences. The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of all of the primates, are in fact some type of an omnivore, including all of the greater primates, eats something that's not plant based as a part of their diet. Gorillas for example will eat ants, and termites. They will use sticks to poke into the where the colony is, and then withdraw it, and eat the ants, or termites off of the stick used.
However where the canine teeth are concerned, some use those as the whole basis for their argument, and there are SOME vegetarians who will use the molars as the whole basis for their argument. In the end both arguments are flawed. Horses for example have canines, which are called wolf teeth. The giant panda is another example as to the flaw with using teeth as a focal point. The teeth of the panda, are those of a carnivore, and yet their diet is strictly that of a herbivore.
However the argument between SOME vegetarians, and SOME omnitarians rages on, while ignoring science, the exceptions are when, and where it suits it suits the individual's particular agenda/propaganda purposes, where the question/debate is concerned, and the challenge of the whole matter of the teeth is brought into play. It's the die hard's in both dietary camps, that insists on pursuing the matter of the teeth, to ad nauseum. Now MOST of those who are some type of a vegetarian, or follow an omnitarian diet, that's actually looked into science deep enough does realize that humans ARE in fact omnivores. Vegetarianism as we know it today, started about thirty five hundred years ago, or about twenty five hundred B.C. in places like India, and Greece. However this is what has been found in written records to date.
However the strict vegetarian diet, didn't start to become feasible, until 1944. Yet SOME people in the early 1800's tried or flirted with at the least following a strict vegetarian diet, but nearly all failed, with only a very rare few that actually managed to follow it. However it wasn't until 1957, and the advent of vitamin B12, as an over the counter supplement, became available that more people were able to become a strict vegetarian. However with that said, not everyone can successfully be a vegetarian of some type. A fact that SOME vegetarians, and SOME vegans refuses to accept. However in all fairness many who eats meat, also are very dogmatic about eating meat, and stating imperatively that everyone and with zero exceptions MUST eat meat to be healthy. Yet there are millions, who are, or have been healthy as vegetarians, for their entire lives.
Humans can survive, and in a lot of cases even thrive on a lacto-ovo-vegetarian lacto-vegetarian, ovo-vegetarian diets, without supplementation. Those who follow a strict vegetarian diet, however do require an outside source for vitamin B12. The only one other exception, for those who eats no fermented foods, are the vitamin K2 isomers. The vitamin K2 isomers are otherwise not found in any fresh plant based foods, but are found in small quantities in dairy, eggs, and meat. All of the rest CAN IN FACT be gotten from plant based foods. But it's understanding what needs to be eaten, and how the food is prepared for eating that plays a role in how well we absorb those nutrients.
Yet it's only the strict vegetarian diet actually needs to be supplemented, and then it's only vitamin B12 that's known to be needed, to supplemented with. However if the real truth be told, there are only a few people, who don't have some nutrient that's at, or below subclinical levels. There are AT LEAST fifteen nutrients, or to be more accurately put, micronutrients, in which subclinical levels are being found. This crosses ALL OF THE DIETARY preferences. The odds of being at subclinical levels is over ninety nine percent, and this is in the most developed countries.
It's inane trivial matters like this though detract, and soft the attention away from issues like health, and nutrition. If there one common ground that needs to be looked at, and taken more seriously where the human diet is really concerned, then it's solving the nutritional crisis, that's not just a second or third world issue, but one that's global in scope. Yet people want to argue over dietary preferences, about the teeth, or some other feature.
Now I'll go in full depth say that a vegetarian can be healthy done right, and with the knowledge acquired to date, for it to be healthy for many. As someone whose diet does contain meat, I recognize it's doable for many, and for many to actually be healthy as a strict vegetarian. But I also realize one other truth, that is it's not suitable for everyone, just like eating meat isn't suitable for everyone, some of which are legitimate medical reasons. Just like those who are some type of a vegetarian won't accept failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet, there are many where meat can be just as detrimental to as well.
In the end I have no qualms, as I don't, and won't take any sides where nutrition is concerned, and I don't care if I step on a few toes along along the way either. The same applies to where I'm familiar enough with other areas, as well to take the same approach.