are we not omnivores

[Guest guest]

as long as i'm on an evolution bend, the first

few teeth in our mouth are for cutting and shredding.

they supposedly evolved to cut and tear tough tissues,

like muscle, tendons and the occasional rutabega.

evolutionarily, looking at diet, we have the best of all worlds.

we are designed to eat whatever we come

across--fruits, vegetables, grains, roughage, meat, just about

everything except for bone (i think hyenas are among the few

animals capable of eating and digesting bone).

<br><br>are we better beings if we choose to use our back

teeth only? is killing an animal to eat any better or

worse than killing a plant? if so, according to what

source of wisdom? it just strikes me as arbitrary to say

that one class of living entity has a greater or

lesser place. to say that it is okay to kill a plant but

not an animal does not seem to make sense. does one

genus, philum or kingdom of entities consist of living

entities and another does not? are some living entities

'beings' and some are not? if so, where and how do you

draw your line. how is your line not arbitrary? how do

some feel secure enough to criticize others for eating

one form of life and then go out and kill others

forms of life themselves? <br>it may be simplistic of

me to argue that we are no better than chimpanzees,

amoebas or cabbages. but it is an easier position to

argue and defend than the logic of 'higher' and 'lower'

forms of life.