• samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Hmm, does it count if the animal (human, in this case) could be omnivorous, but chooses not to be for whatever reason?

      • Resonosity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I like to think of the distinction in a de jure vs de facto way.

        If all the evidence we have of a species is them consuming autotrophs, then we do mental gymnastics and induce that they are 100% herbivores.

        Of course this also leaves room for an herbivore’s potential to consume heterotrophs, in which case our knowledge would have to update and reflect reality. Maybe 99% herbivore, 1% carnivore.

        And at that point, we may still do mental gymnastics and call species herbivores because that is their normal behavior, where their abnormal behavior is shown due to abiotic or biotic factors, perhaps from loss of habitat or removal/introduction of species in the food web, etc.

        Edit: for humans, I’d say we can classify different humans differently because of the times we live in (it’s so easy to be a vegan nowadays) and our natural, higher moral concepts and empathy.

      • rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Herbivores can be carnivorous. I’ve seen plenty of videos of horses and cows cromching on baby chickens.

        • Pilgrim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think you don’t understand the definition then. When herbivores happen to eat some animals, like when cows eat baby chickens, it doesn’t make them carnivores just for doing so. They’re still herbivores