comment: >
  
  The whole concept of what we are "meant" to do based on our strictly organic form is reductionist and ultimately meaningless. 
  We are not "meant" to have glasses
  We are not "meant" to take antibiotics
  We are not "meant" to fly in airplanes
  We are not "meant" to wear clothes
context: I agree. But then we have the people that would sue because they stepped in something or on something. >
  
  Go to New Zealand. It’s really common there >
  
  Same here in Australia >
  
  And in South Africa >
  
  Yeah you try walking in hot ass pavement barefooted. >
  
  Clearly you didn’t read the whole post. I said that in some environments and circumstances, shoes should be worn. For example, on hot pavement. >
  
  “We are meant to walk barefoot”
  Sure, sure…  we are also “meant” to only walk on grass, sand, etc, and to keel over from our first bad bout of food poisoning or flu. >
  
  True, we haven’t evolved to walk on pavement with broken glass scattered around >
  
  I run barefoot and don't mind little pieces stepping on, but feet are just tough as rocks and know how to properly step. >
  
  There is a flaw in your first line "we are meant to walk barefoot" we are not 'meant' to do anything, we exist and make choices, there is no actual meaning or purpose to what we do, simply choices we make >
  
  i mean what you are saying is sound, but also getting slightly caught in semantics. By ‘meant to’ it can mean what we evolved over the vast, vast majority of our collective existence to do. Our bodies indeed were not ‘designed’ to wear shoes, from a standpoint of biology and massive amounts of time.