this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2026
486 points (94.2% liked)
Funny
14381 readers
1656 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that has mostly been debunked. Even the hunter gatherers were much more gathering than hunting, in the big picture. And fishing is probably more relevant than meat (if we're making that distinction). And later it was really agriculture that made our species what it is and it's very much the grains (and rice) that made the big difference.
Not a vegan btw.
Heh, fish are meat.
I agree. Still, the distinction is a very cultural one. So many cultures, even civilisations can trace their beginning back to a coastline or river. Hunting things like mammoths was actually quite rare, but it makes for better stories. Taxonomically there isn't even such a thing as a "fish".
I think you are giving a very eurocentric description of early humanity
You think? Most of the great fishing civilisations I think of are (South East) Asian, Indian, Japanese etc.
(Some of that might be based on Age of Empires info)
I'm mostly referencing your allusion to agriculture as a developmental milestone