Would we even bother with agriculture? If every growing green thing was edible?
2007-03-23 12:18:32 · 13 answers · asked by anonymous 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
And uncooked oak leaves and grass. Don't tell me you get calories from oak leaves.
Most plant matter is leaves, wood or stems, all indigestible cellulose.
Humans don't have the enzymes needed to break down plant cell walls.
2007-03-23 13:00:47 · update #1
Honestly, without the dense calorie content of bone marrow and other animal foods, it is doubtful we would have evolved beyond Australopithecus due to the high energy cost of having a large brain.
2007-03-23 13:37:43 · answer #1 · answered by Captain Hammer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just a second, let me put away my salad ... oh, it's made of lettuce, a leaf, and cabbage, a leaf. Maybe I'll stick to mint and basil and thyme and rosemary ... oh, all leaves ....
Perhaps your question should have been, how would history have been different if humans ate only leaves?
My first response would be, there would be a lot more of us, because people can survive on far less land if it is planted in vegetables than if it is used to sustain cows and pigs. Plants are the way to go to get the most food off the smallest piece of land.
2007-03-23 12:27:01 · answer #2 · answered by John B 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, we do eat leaves...did you forget about salads, spinach, cabbage, mint, herbs? These are all leaves of plants.
But, I am assuming that you meant leaves of a tree. Agriculture would still be vital to the economic developments today. The value of a tree, flower, bush anything that you would want to eat would skyrocket! With the growing population the demand would probably fall short of the supply. We would still domesticate the trees to make sure that our families, towns, countries, etc do not grow hungry. When the nomads stopped roaming and started developing colonies they did not only domesticate the animals, but plants also.
2007-03-23 12:36:11 · answer #3 · answered by leeza8605 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we would probably be much milder mannered and hunger
probably wouldn't be the world problem it is today --
more than likely agriculture Would be even more involved than
today, "farmers" would be trying to see that trees produced
more and better flavored leaves and manipulating which
plants there were the most of to provide for market
shortages and higher earnings
2007-03-23 12:36:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Humans as ruminants? Now, thats an interesting slant!
I don't think history would have been different. It is not humans dietary habits, but their cerebral habits, that made/make a difference.
2007-03-23 14:39:05 · answer #5 · answered by aidan402 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We wouldn't have caused countless animals to go extinct as a result of hunting for food.
2007-03-23 12:27:04 · answer #6 · answered by bhanphrionsa 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is nonsensical. Have you never heard of lettuce,spinach, cabbage, vine leaves etc.?
2007-03-23 19:23:41 · answer #7 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we could eat ONLY leaves we would be cattle to Neanderthals if they didn't harvest us into extinction or kill us outright.
2007-03-23 12:34:20 · answer #8 · answered by pathc22 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we'd still have agriculture, im sure, but if we can eat any/every leaf, then there'll probably less hungry people. 'world hunger' wouldnt be as bad as it is now. some animal species probably wouldnt be extinct.
2007-03-23 12:24:54 · answer #9 · answered by ginger ♥ edward cullen 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Leaves? Only leaves?
I'll let you know after my nap.
2007-03-23 14:38:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋