I have read allot of primal articles that say it would be ridiculous to consider primal man ate allot of carbs. But it seems to me that primal man would have eaten mostly fruit (also some nuts/seeds, leafy greens, and yes meat,fish). I was hoping someone could show me the flaw in my following logic: Primal man would be in some warm place (where humans are meant to be) where there are lots of fruit trees and he'd eat lots of fruit because it is easy to get to and available in abundance. It's nicely packaged, satisfies his taste buds, doesn't need to be cooked, prepared or seasoned. Then he'd take a crap and disperse the seeds and more fruit trees would grow. It seems to me like fruit is the only thing that wants to be eaten and we have a symbiotic relationship with it. I know primal man also ate meat, but could this not be considered human error? Like moving to cold climates? Money? War? Slavery? My point is, us humans have not always gotten it right (but in some instances there have been a few who have realized the error and fought to make great change). Maybe we're supposed to use our unique higher consciousness as humans to evolve and see that we do not need to kill animals and burden our planet in order to be healthy. If one eats adequate calories in fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds there is no need to eat meat. We do not need all that protein. I use to stand behind the logic that there are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, but no essential carbs. But this is because the human body is so resilient that it will make glucose from protein if you don't give it enough sugar. Why not just give it (natural) sugar? It will produce ketones to fuel the brain if you follow a very high fat/super low carb diet in order to not die. Why not just give it the natural sugar it needs to function? Fruit seems to be the perfect human food and a plant based diet can provide us with all the essential nutrients we need to thrive, so why not let the animals live their lives?