You're ignoring adaptation. It's not about if we can eat creatures that existed before homo sapiens, or if we can eat them raw and wild; it's about how being ab

You're ignoring adaptation. It's not about if we can eat creatures that existed before homo sapiens, or if we can eat them raw and wild; it's about how being able to eat things affects survival and reproduction. Take mushrooms, for example: they've existed for 700+ million years, way before homo sapiens, and while 1-2% of them are poisonous to us, we can eat others just fine. It's not like the others were healthy, it's that food wasn't available all the time, and individuals being able to eat mushrooms thrived better than those who couldn't. They kept eating mushrooms and getting sick, until someone didn't, because they were hungry. Same with fire. Fire is like predigesting food, making nutrients more readily available for our relatively fast digestion. It will soften hard fibers, cartilage, hard meat, and coerce nutrients out of hard-to-digest plants. After it there was no need for massive jaws to munch your food for most of the day. Cooking is likely what made humans what we are today, it was practiced by homo erectus 1.5 million years ago. Homo sapiens emerged just 300,000 years ago, so cooking with fire also existed before us, hence it's part of our natural environment. And don't get me started on agriculture! While I agree that we're doing it wrong in many aspects, agriculture enabled human civilization. Instead of everyone being a hunter-gatherer, the farmers could produce food, even a surplus, while others could produce other things (or exploit the population :). Rejecting herding, farming, fire, and technology in general is stupid, it's like declaring oneself a "sovereign citizen", but still wanting all the comforts of life paid with taxes, like firefighters, 911 calls, electricity, waste management, clean water, roads, police, weather reports, tornado warnings, etc. You wouldn't exist today without those things you seem to reject. Seriously, I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you, I have the impression that you're not interested in facts, history or science, but in personal opinions and feelings.