正文翻譯

好吧，順便說一句，它吃的是另一只猴子。
可能自打有了人類，人類就一直在吃肉。
這是布須曼人在獵殺斑馬。

事實上，如果不吃肉，我們可能就不是人類了。讓我們面對現(xiàn)實吧，那兩個布須曼人自己不會吃掉一整只斑馬。他們會和他們周圍的家人和女人一起分享。這就建立了長久的社會關(guān)系，并需要大腦來記錄，再加上要保持直立的姿勢來整天追趕斑馬而不感到疲累，另外因為外面已經(jīng)很暖和而沒有皮毛，你不想整天追趕斑馬時體溫過高。
我們甚至選擇了另一個物種來幫助我們，這對雙方都是有益的，至今仍然如此。

0

你是條好狗！是的，就是你！
人類是在半干旱氣候中發(fā)展起來的。在半干旱的氣候里，你可以找到蔬菜，但主要的食物來源是食草動物。雖然草很豐富，但人不能吃草，不過可以吃肉。
平原印第安人

0

拉普蘭

0

因紐特人

0

事實上，直到大約12000年前，人類才轉(zhuǎn)向以植物為主的飲食。像這樣的地方：

0

還有這個

0

但是回到你的問題——其實人類吃生肉的歷史由來已久。生吃蔬菜也是。
但是生肉有個問題，難以嚼碎。刀子的第一個用途是把它切成小塊。生肉還含有病原體——你不應(yīng)該把它喂給小孩子。也不容易從中獲取能量。
所以，自從火被利用和馴服，人們就用它來處理肉類，使其更容易咀嚼或加工。

0

這是pemmican，在美國本土相當于Spam。你可以把生肉條在火上慢慢烤干，直到它們變硬(像牛肉干)，然后把它們搗成粉末，加入等量的油脂。嗯，味道不錯。
所以，是的，你完全可以吃生肉，但它不像烹調(diào)過那么令人愛吃，以及對身體有益。

0

評論翻譯

0

David Eliezer
Cooked food is much more efficient to digest, you must eat a lot more raw food to get the same nutrients from the same food if cooked. It is felt by some that cooking changed our biology enough to afford big brains.

煮熟的食物更容易消化，你必須吃更多的生食才能從煮熟的食物中獲得同樣多的營養(yǎng)。有些人認為，烹飪徹底改變了我們的生物學，從而讓我們可以負擔大腦運作。

0

0

David Eliezer
Edited, there was a typo. Cooked food releases nutrients with much *less* digestive effort, according to a lot of recent papers. Thus, cooking enabled us to have bigger brains, and do things other than hunt for food. It also enabled bigger tribes.

編輯問題，出現(xiàn)了一個錯別字。烹飪使我們擁有更大的大腦，并能做一些獵食以外的事情。它也使更大的部落得以存在。

0

0

Walter Hanagriff
He is saying because it destroys some nutrients, that you need to eat more to get an equivalent amount of nutrients. To him this means it is inefficient to eat meat.
Whether this is true, everything is a trade off. Let’s say it does have less nutrients cooked. It is still more “efficient” because it is easier to carry/transport, easier to eat, and safer to eat.
A trade off worth making.

他的意思是，因為熟肉破壞了一些營養(yǎng)物質(zhì)，你需要吃得更多才能得到等量的營養(yǎng)物質(zhì)。對他來說，這意味著吃熟肉是低效的。
不管這是不是真的，所有的事情都是一種權(quán)衡。我們假設(shè)煮熟的食物營養(yǎng)更少，但它更“高效”，因為它更容易攜帶/運輸，更易于食用，更安全。這是一個值得做的權(quán)衡。

0

0

Todd Johnson
Well, obviously sitting around a fire, more in northern parts, all it takes is one dude to cook some of the meat and go “Oh, this is much better….”. Kind of like asking “How did they know to put [x] sauce/spice/etc on meat to make it taste better?” They try new things. Cooked meat became like Facebook — caught on. :)

好吧，很明顯，在北部地區(qū)，坐在火邊，一個人只要煮一些肉，然后說:“哦，這更好吃了……”就像問:“他們怎么知道在肉上放些醬料/香料之類，肉就更好吃了呢?”他們勇于嘗試新鮮事物，于是吃熟肉就像Facebook一樣流行起來了（手動斜眼）

0

Garrett Stock
I wanna know what asshole figured out how to eat fugu. Running theory with my dad and I are either it was some sort of drinking game or a bored landowner with too many slaves.
Or maybe just slaves who were desperate, sort of how the Americans learned how to cook lobster. But more deadly.

我想知道是哪個混蛋想出來怎么吃河豚的。我和我爸爸認為，要么是因為某種酗酒游戲，要么是因為一個有太多奴隸的無聊地主。
或者也可能只是絕望的奴隸的絕望之舉，就像美國人是如何學會做龍蝦的一樣。但吃河豚顯然更致命。

0

0

Lee Thé
Our reduced dentition, jaw size and jaw muscle mass all accompanied our switching to cooked meat and vegetables.

我們減少的牙齒、顎骨大小和顎肌群的減少都與我們改吃熟肉和蔬菜有關(guān)。

0

Peter R Roberts
I must make the comment that humans are quite capable of eating raw meat - especially if it is shredded or minced sufficiently fine.
My wife and I have, over the years, dined at elegant restaurants in many countries where we have particularly ordered Steak Tartare, which is cold, raw, shredded beef with raw vegetables and a raw egg on top. It is an exceedingly tasty dish and causes our digestive systems no problem whatsoever.
The only caveat is that one should only order it in a very high-quality restaurant where one can be certain that the food hygiene is immaculate and of the highest standard. Otherwise, uncooked food (if contaminated) can result in serious gastric illness. In five-star hotels, we have never found any problem.
One of the key benefits of cooking is that it can and will destroy pathogens (germs and viruses) that can harm humans.
So, we must recognise that the wording of the question is not correct—as is common in Quora questions. Humans DO NOT HAVE TO COOK MEAT.
Regards,
Peter R Roberts.

我必須要說的是，人類吃生肉的能力相當強——尤其是如果生肉被切碎或剁碎得足夠細的話。
多年來，我和妻子在許多國家的高檔餐廳用餐，我們特別點了韃靼牛排。韃靼牛排是一種冷的、生的碎牛肉，上面放著生蔬菜和一個生雞蛋。這是一道非常美味的菜，對我們的消化系統(tǒng)沒有任何問題。
唯一需要注意的是，你只能在非常高質(zhì)量的餐廳點這種菜，在那里你可以確定食物衛(wèi)生是完美的和最高標準的。否則，未煮熟的食物(如果被污染的話)會導致嚴重的胃病。在五星級酒店，我們從來沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)任何問題。
烹飪的一個主要好處是，它能殺死對人類有害的病原體(細菌和病毒)。
所以，我們必須認識到，這個問題的措辭是不正確的——這在Quora問題中很常見。人類不必非得烹煮肉類。
致以問候，
彼得·羅伯茨。

0

CJ Lee
I feel like if we are going down this road of being pedantic we could add a lot of don’t HAVE to’s. We don’t HAVE to pay bills, we don’t HAVE to wear clothes in public, we don’t HAVE to follow the law. Doesn’t mean any of these are the best choices.
The question is clearly intended to mean the optimal process for humans. There is no doubt that cooked meat offers more nutritional value and more energy. So, our ancient ancestors more or less did HAVE to cook them because a cut in energy might have lead to an even earlier death.

我覺得如果我們沿著這種學究式的道路走下去，我們還可以添加很多不必要的東西。我們不必付賬單，我們不必在公共場合穿衣服，我們不必遵守法律。但這并不意味著這些都是最好的選擇。
這個問題顯然是指對人類而言最佳的方式。毫無疑問，熟肉提供更多的營養(yǎng)價值和更多的能量。所以，我們遠古的祖先或多或少不得不把肉煮熟，因為能量的減少可能會致使更早的死亡。

0

Peter R Roberts
And perhaps you may be wrong in your interpretation of the question because you will see the qualifier, being, “all other animals can eat it raw”. The word ‘can’ is what I looked at to differentiate and to amplify the meaning. Thus, I cannot agree with you.

也許你對這個問題的解釋是錯誤的，因為你會看到限定詞，即“所有其他動物都可以生吃”?！癱an”這個詞是我用來區(qū)分和放大其意思。因此，我不能同意你的看法。

0

David B?ckstr?m
We humans have always had a basic diet of roots, fruits, nuts, berries, seeds, fish and some meat(10–20%). We have cooked our food for 1 million years at least.
The further north humans came the further away from each other they lived and the more meat they had to eat.
Forest and savanna dwelling humans has until 12000 ya been the most common. And still was 6000ya.
Agricultural native Americans was a way bigger group of people than the Hunter-gatherers. Romans could be counted in tens of millions while North Europeans at the same time was counted at a million or so even though they had the same technology for producing food(not everything else).
So your answer is wrong and it’s misinformed that people started to have a plant based diet 12000 ya. Their diet changed to more and more grains instead of a variety of wild greens, but meat remained at 10–20% for most people.

我們?nèi)祟惖幕撅嬍呈菢涓?、水果、堅果、漿果、種子、魚和一些肉(10-20%)。我們烹飪食物至少已經(jīng)有100萬年的歷史了。
人類越往北遷徙，彼此之間的距離就越遠，他們需要吃的肉也就越多。
直到12000年前，人類才普遍居住在森林和稀樹草原。
以農(nóng)業(yè)為生的美洲土著是一個比采獵者更大的群體。羅馬人有數(shù)千萬人，而同期的北歐人有100萬左右，盡管他們擁有同樣的技術(shù)來生產(chǎn)食物(不是其他一切東西)。
所以你的答案是錯誤的，這種說法訛傳12000年前，人們開始以植物為基礎(chǔ)的飲食。他們的食物越來越多改為谷物，而不是各種野生綠色蔬菜，但肉類對大多數(shù)人來說仍保持在10-20%。

0

Robert Mueller
Yes; I have read expert opinions that cooking was an important invention in the evolution of humans because cooking enabled to better access to nutrients in what people were eating. This was helpful bcause human energy needs are substantial. Thus cooking added advantages (liberation of nutrients and reduction of unhealthy components) when one consumed either vegetables or meat although one can in suitable environments get by without cooking.

是的,我看過一些專家的觀點，他們認為烹飪是人類進化過程中的一項重要發(fā)明，因為烹飪使人們能夠更好地獲取所吃食物中的營養(yǎng)。這是有益的，因為人類的能量需求是巨大的。因此，當一個人吃蔬菜或肉時，烹飪優(yōu)勢明顯(釋放營養(yǎng)和減少不健康成分)，盡管在某些適當?shù)沫h(huán)境下，不烹飪也可以。

0

David B?ckstr?m
And not to forget, our body only use the ketone process when in some version of starvation. Our brain is dependent on carbohydrates to function efficiently, which is most easily available year round and in most environments from cooked or grilled roots.

而且別忘了，我們的身體只有在饑餓的時候才會用到酮。我們的大腦依賴碳水化合物來有效運作，這種碳水化合物一年四季都很容易獲得，而且在大多數(shù)環(huán)境中都可以從煮熟或烤熟的根莖中獲得。