As much as I like what you're trying to say about physical traits... time and adaptation has proven otherwise. Take, for example, the Innuit people. They have adapted over time (because of our omnivorous nature) to digest raw seal meat, blubber, raw fish, etc. They can subsist on a diet much different than most of the industrialized world because the human omnivorous nature allows for adaptation.
What I'm saying is this: Just because we're CAPABLE of doing something like eating meat, doesn't mean that we SHOULD.
The same goes for our (canine at the very least) non-human companions.
FYI -- My dog, Bean has been a long-time vegan, is 16 years old, and still runs around like a puppy. It's a testimony to the versatility of the omnivore and their adaptive traits.
You've brought up some good points about humans being able to adapt. There still is a difference between the scenario of the Inuit people and dogs though. The Inuit live(d?) high up there in the north, where fruits and vegetables aren't as abundant as they are in the opposite direction (except for Antarctica
). Even though Wikipedia says the Inuit were surrounded by an abundance of vegetation, I think it's safe to say there wasn't really an "abundance" the way we think of it. True, the Inuit apparently developed to eat raw meats, but they didn't appear to "thrive" off of it according to some research I just did.
For example, Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.
I got this from this website
. They directly associate the low life expectancy with their meat-rich diet. They also compare their life expectancy to the Maasai in Kenya, who have a meat-rich diet and say that they are similar.
So what I'm trying to say is that even though we might technically be omnivores, we really shouldn't be eating any meat. In my opinion, it's purely a survival technique.
According to Wikipedia, felines and canines are carnivores. Dogs seem to eat most fruits and some vegetables without any hesitation. In fact, when we're in Michigan on vacation, my dog eats blueberries from the blueberry bushes. To me, this means that dogs are omnivores although they're diet usually consists of meats. My dog once hunted and ate a wild rat in the very same place (I was impressed, since he has extremely stumpy legs and doesn't run as fast as most dogs lmao). I believe dogs should eat some vegetables/fruits since they obviously do, but I wouldn't eliminate meat from their diets.
Although I'm not sure if I can say the same about cats. I've never heard of a cat eating raw fruits or veggies (although I could be wrong). Verification or correcting me on this would help a lot.
What I'm trying to say is that dogs and cats eat mostly meat in the wild. Humans eat mostly vegetables in the wild. In my opinion, converting a cat or dog's diet into something like ours would be equivalent to converting a human diet to that of a carnivore. The Inuits didn't live to be so old.
I can't really back that example up seeing as how your dog is 16 (happy to hear that, most dogs don't live to be that old) and has a vegan diet. Although from what I've been reading, vegan pet food is supplemented with things that they would normally get from meat. Like I said before, that, to me, is the equivalent of supplementing meat with nutrients found in plants, which I don't approve of.
I'm liking this debate