So, from the way various raw foodists have explained it to me (and bear in mind that they were almost certainly stoned at the time, and hence perhaps their reasoning does not represent the “party line”) the reasoning behind only consuming raw food is that this is somehow more natural to the human condition. Like, human beings were evolved to eat raw food, and only ate raw food always, until relatively recently, so our systems are all like confused by cooked food, man. And the cooked food, it just kind of shocks our bodies, and makes them go whoah, like what the hell’s happening. So we get all sick and fat and unhealthy, because what we’re eating is all just totally fundamentally not in even the form we’re suppposed to eat it in. Like, it goes beyond chemicals and junk. We’ve heated up the food, applied fire and heat to it, and totally just baked the hell out all the rich natural vitamins and proteins and minerals and nutrients and junk that are supposed to be in it.
Okay, that’s actually totally wrong, and here’s why. There’s evidence that our ancestors, Homo Erectus, used fire as early as 1.5 million years ago. By around 400,000 years ago, there’s widespread evidence that we were using fire in a fairly controlled way, including charred bone! As in the charred bones of things that we cooked and then ate! Modern humanity diverged from whatever common ancestor we had with the Neanderthals (who probably also used fire) 200,000 years ago. So actually, we are specifically evolved as a people who cooked our food. How can anyone think that eating only raw food (especially meat) is a good idea? I mean, I get it if it’s for, like, spiritual or ethical or moral or aesthetic reasons, or whatever. But if it’s for health reasons? Cmon.