Honestly a very anti materialist stance. People ate fish, chicken, etc all the time while subsistence farming. In many northern climes like europe it was a necessity for survival. People forget how radically different the world was even 500 years ago in terms of animal diversity and sheer quantities of animals. You could trivially go to a stream and physically grab a fish. People did that all the time. Of course, in the modern day it would be better and more efficient not to.
Other examples include: killing mammoths in droves to make houses out of their bones and eat meat for a whole year, scaring buffalo off a cliff to eat them for basically the rest of the year, clubbing seals almost every day for any sort of sustenance, fishing year round in Europe and pickling it to not starve, cutting horses and drinking their blood and milk in order to survive a migration, archaelogical evidence suggesting early humans mostly were scavengers and natures dumpster, I can keep listing forever.
I think we're saying the same thing. Like you said, prehistoric humans are between 75-80% vegetation (tubers,bark,roots,etc like you said) and 20% meat, which increases a little after fire/cooking/preservation is discovered and is more than apes etc. What I was saying is that the majority of people did not and have not eaten meat every single day in the amounts that the industrial revolution provided, because it was too expensive and could threaten your livelihood (killing cattle for meat now vs milk and more cows later). That doesn't mean they didn't ever eat meat, but that the amounts and frequency were much smaller than today. I don't understand how that is anti-materialist unless I wasn't clear enough in my first comment
Inuits:
Honestly a very anti materialist stance. People ate fish, chicken, etc all the time while subsistence farming. In many northern climes like europe it was a necessity for survival. People forget how radically different the world was even 500 years ago in terms of animal diversity and sheer quantities of animals. You could trivially go to a stream and physically grab a fish. People did that all the time. Of course, in the modern day it would be better and more efficient not to.
Other examples include: killing mammoths in droves to make houses out of their bones and eat meat for a whole year, scaring buffalo off a cliff to eat them for basically the rest of the year, clubbing seals almost every day for any sort of sustenance, fishing year round in Europe and pickling it to not starve, cutting horses and drinking their blood and milk in order to survive a migration, archaelogical evidence suggesting early humans mostly were scavengers and natures dumpster, I can keep listing forever.
The pigeons of the apes.
Overgrown raccoons
that can run fast and catch shit on fire oh fuck
We're not even fast, we're just really sweaty so we can chase things until they die of heat stroke
horses
humans
sweaty
I think we're saying the same thing. Like you said, prehistoric humans are between 75-80% vegetation (tubers,bark,roots,etc like you said) and 20% meat, which increases a little after fire/cooking/preservation is discovered and is more than apes etc. What I was saying is that the majority of people did not and have not eaten meat every single day in the amounts that the industrial revolution provided, because it was too expensive and could threaten your livelihood (killing cattle for meat now vs milk and more cows later). That doesn't mean they didn't ever eat meat, but that the amounts and frequency were much smaller than today. I don't understand how that is anti-materialist unless I wasn't clear enough in my first comment