> It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food.
What they want is irrelevant. As they evolved to avoid being eaten, so we evolved to be able to obtains, eat and digest it. It's not a one-sided process of providing us with a ready made menu.
> At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne
Why do you assume we did not eat animals "in the trees"? Is there any evidence to support that? Chimps eat meat on occasion, for example, and when they do the pack literally tears the victim apart.
And describing it as a "cult" is ridiculous. It became important because it is an immense source of nutrients, and available in many places where surviving on available plants/fruits was near impossible prior to the development of extensive trade. The ability to eat and digest meat provided us with yet another evolutionary advantage over many other animals.
> We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us
There's plenty of fruit that's green when it is ripe, and plenty that is a different colour than green for a long time before it is ripe.
> we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest
Which have proved superior in providing means for killing animals? Our hands can hold and wield weapons. Which approach to eating meat is better: Tearing apart raw meat, or cooking it? You seem to assume that we are not well adapted to handling our new menu entries and/or that these features somehow means we're better adapted to fruit just because we haven't taken on the characteristics of animals that are terribly limited in their abilities.
What about pure carnivores? Surely their food doesn't want to be food, but carnivores do just fine.
While I agree that the amount of corn we eat is absurd, to call it inedible is ludicrous. Raw corn on the cob is plenty edible, and sweet corn is quite tasty, although that's admittedly not what's grown on large corn plantations.
True, in the classic 'cheetah chasing wildebeest' scenario the the wildebeest is not 'chemically defended' and the cat enjoys his dinner. However, we aren't pure carnivores are we? Our taste buds are different as is our gut flora, our saliva has enzymes in it plus we have a lengthy intestine. Sure we can eat wildebeest - raw - but we would have to sit around all day - cat style - to have it digest. Due to the intestine length our 'wildebeest on toast' would start to rot inside us whereas the cat would not have that problem. Hence we cook animals and use the word 'meat'.
98% of the corn grown in the USA is field corn, grown for its starch content. You cannot eat this stuff and enjoy doing so. You need something tantamount to an oil refinery to make it edible or a distillery to make it drinkable.
The corn you are thinking of - the nice sweetcorn in the supermarket - is from a different variety, it is grown for the sugar content, not the starch content.
Essentially field corn is a chemical feedstock, it can be used for many, many things - which is great. However, look at those ingredient labels in the U.S.A. and, after a while, question whether you are eating a great deal of stuff that is not corn-derived. HFCS is obvious, 'xanthan gum' is not so obvious.
I may be mistaken or we may be both using different myths to justify our food based belief systems but I was under the assumption that at least the larger pre-Columbian societies were done in by European diseases.
At least some pre-Columbian societies nixtamalized their corn (think hominy and masa harina), which unlocks many nutrients, greatly improving its nutritional value and making it a much better staple than non-nixtamalized corn.
What they want is irrelevant. As they evolved to avoid being eaten, so we evolved to be able to obtains, eat and digest it. It's not a one-sided process of providing us with a ready made menu.
> At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne
Why do you assume we did not eat animals "in the trees"? Is there any evidence to support that? Chimps eat meat on occasion, for example, and when they do the pack literally tears the victim apart.
And describing it as a "cult" is ridiculous. It became important because it is an immense source of nutrients, and available in many places where surviving on available plants/fruits was near impossible prior to the development of extensive trade. The ability to eat and digest meat provided us with yet another evolutionary advantage over many other animals.
> We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us
There's plenty of fruit that's green when it is ripe, and plenty that is a different colour than green for a long time before it is ripe.
> we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest
Which have proved superior in providing means for killing animals? Our hands can hold and wield weapons. Which approach to eating meat is better: Tearing apart raw meat, or cooking it? You seem to assume that we are not well adapted to handling our new menu entries and/or that these features somehow means we're better adapted to fruit just because we haven't taken on the characteristics of animals that are terribly limited in their abilities.