u/Only_Balance_7650

My relative told me this theory recently and honestly it made me think a lot

Look at how herbivores like cows, goats and horses usually drink by sipping/sucking water into their mouth. while carnivores like lions, cats and dogs mainly lap it with their tongue. Humans also sip/suck water ?

Humans evolved from primates, and most monkeys today are mainly plant eaters, but many also eat insects, eggs and sometimes small animals. So what if our ancestors were originally more herbivorous, then slowly became omnivores because of environment and food availability?

So I started wondering, Could this drinking behaviour be inherited from our ancestors who were herbivore? What if humans and our earlier primate ancestors were mainly plant eaters, and later, because of changes in environment and food availability, they started eating insects, eggs and eventually meat?

My relative has lived almost his whole life in a village and has never eaten meat, and he's still healthy even at an old age. So it also made me wonder: if humans can live without meat, was eating animals always necessary, or did our ancestors start doing it because it was available, useful for energy/nutrients, and eventually became something we liked?

Maybe taste and circumstances played a bigger role than we think.

Many animals can eat something other than their primary food without changing what they are. Herbivores can sometimes eat animal matter but still remain primarily plant eaters. So could humans have similarly started eating animals because of circumstances and availability, and later developed a taste and preference for it? That's really the point I'm trying to explore. Maybe our ancestors ate animals because it was useful for survival, but today we continue doing it partly because we enjoy the taste, even when we don't necessarily need to kill animals to survive.

I don't understand the "Eren's nature explains everything" argument.

People often point to the Ramzi scene and argue that Eren couldn't change the future because his future self is still Eren. He considers walking away but ultimately saves Ramzi because that's who he is. I think that scene works.

My issue is that people then apply that same logic to every decision Eren makes in the finale.

If Eren's nature truly drove everything, then why did he stop at 80%?

Chapter 131 makes it clear that Eren wanted to flatten the entire outside world. If his deepest desire was complete freedom through a full Rumbling, why does he suddenly stop at 80%, allow his friends to kill him, and intentionally position them as the heroes who stopped him? That's much closer to Lelouch's plan than to the Eren we saw earlier. He also deliberately pushed Mikasa and Armin away, despite knowing from his future memories that they would eventually oppose him and that Mikasa's choice would be crucial to ending the Titan curse. If "future Eren is still Eren" and he had agency, then these were calculated decisions not simply the inevitable result of his nature.

If the answer is that Eren had agency because "future Eren is still Eren," then stopping at 80% was also his choice. In that case, "it's his nature" doesn't fully explain his actions because he knowingly acted against his own stated desire.

If the answer is "Ymir wanted it" or "the timeline required it," then the agency argument becomes much weaker. At that point, Eren isn't simply acting according to his own nature anymore.

So which interpretation is it?

I'm not arguing that Eren had no agency. I'm saying that people often switch between "Eren chose everything because of his nature" and "Eren had no choice because of the timeline or Ymir," depending on which criticism they're responding to. Those two explanations don't fit together cleanly.