Kevin's Watch

Food by it's nature has always been a collective activity; the gathering, growing, hunting, preparing and ultimately eating. But at what point and why does it become entertainment - and more crucially in terms of the OP, what would be the result of this not happening. Actually - I think the OP is simply wrong; it is never the food that is entertainment. It is the company, the occasion, the frisson, the context that provides this, not actually the food. Food can provide comfort, satisfy needs, act as the hub around which the social entertainment is constructed, but is never the actual entertainment itself. Solitary eating satisfies a number of deep seated needs, but none of them can be described as entertainment.

Well, insofar as it was inevitable that food become entertainment, I pretty much agree. If you have to do something in order to survive, no surprise that you make an effort to make it as pleasant / interesting as possible.

--A

First, peter - thinking of you! oh, boy, that sounds rough...
Was it just within the last few days that you had your wretched visit to the hospital & got put on that diet?

Sky wrote:I was on somac for years for the gastritis and ulcers .. but when I decided to take myself off all medication .. I was on 7 twice daily different things .. for blood pressure, anticonvulscents, blood sugar, ulcers shit, other shit etc.. I took myself off somac as well. And the good thing is that as you get older the acidic levels in your stomach naturally decline .. and now I eat whatever I want and drink whatever I want.

That is wild, sky... encouraging to hear that those things were able to change and improve. (yikes that they were ever so bad! but yeah, stressful job.)

Sorus wrote:I tried to frame an on-topic post when the thread was first started, but it became a little overwhelming.

THANK you for saying this.
I'm not the only one this happens to, then...
...and now the precedent has been set for do-overs on threads! (maybe.)

Sorus wrote:On the one hand, we would have had more time to devote to art and science and whatnot, which would suggest a more advanced society.

I will counter then with, "How much art, literature, etc. has been produced because of people in those pursuits sitting down together to eat and drink?"
We don't think of science as happening when people sit down to eat, but certainly technology would be hindered... or why else would people socially engineer the famed "Google Bump"?
Whatnot I can't speak to.

Sorus wrote:On the other hand, agriculture and whatnot had a huge effect on society as we know it. I can't really form a clear picture of what modern society would look like with all that removed from history.

Huh. That is... thorny.
But I guess we can forward that back to aTOMic, and see what he has in mind for the connection between agriculture and the hypothetical Meal Squares... how are they produced, etc.?

Also, aTOMic, I suspect you generated some ideas from the convo you had that sparked this thread.
I don't do well with hypotheticals sometimes.
what ideas have ya got so far?

Sorus wrote:Even basic family structure - would people have more kids or not? Mortality rates in general would be lower throughout history, but people might not be as close to one another.

Well, if less agriculture... maybe less kids.
(Unless each family has neat little plots to farm exactly what's needed for the Meal Squares.)
but ughh with people maybe not being as close to one another.

I remember when I was living in Vancouver, BC, I was INCREDIBLY lonely at first... so much culture shock...
(it's been said that when you move to an "adjacent" culture, the culture shock can still be pretty bad, b/c you don't expect it; it surprises you. so no not-taking-that-seriously if I say there was culture shock!)
One of my first revelations as I struggled to have decent conversations & make acquaintances was that there was a universal pleasant topic to talk about, no matter where they were from.
And everybody had some expertise in it, too:
FOOD!

Linna I dont know what Google Bump is? Can you explain this?

And on your comments about agriculture and kids .. maybe thered be more kids .. cos if food is not entertainment .. presumably wed be doing other fun things to put a smile on our faces There might actually be MORE KIDS in the absence of food and drink.

I agree Pete that food isnt the entertainment its the company. Its always the company .. and food and drink are the lubricators .. that get conversations flowing and such. So theres that.

I think what we are really talking about is not the social use of food .. but more the abuse of food .. by individuals and even populations as a whole.

Eating to excess, eating crappy food, thats all abuse not entertainment. Developing a psychological crutch that is food or drink based .. is another.

Skyweir wrote:
And yes if humans absorbed all the nutrition they needed through the air and .. some similar process .. then would we ever encounter disease? We certainly wouldnt encounter obesity and consumption excess related conditions.

This is part of where I got stuck. There would still be some hereditary conditions. Probably influenza and tropical diseases. Fewer plagues throughout history - rats would still be a factor, but there wouldn't be as many of them with no food around.

Which is where I get sidetracked again - what domestic animals would we have? Probably no cows, pigs, chickens or other basic farm animals. Possibly no cats or dogs, since they started out as mousers and hunting buddies. Horses and other 'transportation' animals (llamas, camels, burros, whatnot) - maybe. Back to agriculture. No need for hay or other cereal crops. Wild horses can sustain themselves off the land, but that's not going to be viable in a city/town scenario. So would we grow crops to feed the horses? That leads us back to more potential interactions with rats (plague and whatnot) and a potential relationship with our feline friends.

Horses were integral to making the first mass-produced flu vaccines, and I think chickens (eggs) were also involved there, so that brings us back to the whole disease topic. Everything is just so interconnected - you can't just pull one thread out. It's likely that we would have found a different solution, but again, I can't get a clear picture of what that would be.

Brilliant points Sorus you are absolutely right .. of course thered be diseases and other naturally occurring non diet related diseases and conditions.

And how fascinating .. of course thered be no agriculture, no farming of animals .. no hunting .. unless for sport But yeah probably someone experimented with animals so perhaps the vaccines and medical discoveries would still occur and evolve..

Interesting freaking set of dynamics isnt it?

Linna Heartlistener wrote:I will counter then with, "How much art, literature, etc. has been produced because of people in those pursuits sitting down together to eat and drink?"
We don't think of science as happening when people sit down to eat, but certainly technology would be hindered... or why else would people socially engineer the famed "Google Bump"?
Whatnot I can't speak to.

That is definitely an important point, and I should have been more clear that I was talking more about our hunter/gatherer days than modern times.

And again, the whole thing is kinda overwhelming. People would have had so much more free time, and what would they have done with it? WoW hadn't been invented yet. As Sky suggested, they definitely could have spent more time making babies, as well as more time raising/educating children. But what would a tribe look like if people weren't dependent on the hunters and gatherers? Would we be more peaceful in general, or more inclined to war and whatnot? What would religion look like? That's one I feel unqualified to touch, but nearly every major religion has important stuff about food.

I love the whole 'what if?' aspect, and I've always been fascinated with alternate history and parallel universes and whatnot. (Especially whatnot.) This is just so drastic though, and it gets more drastic the closer you look at it.

Curious about TOM's ideas - I'm doing my best to stay on topic, but I do tend to go off on tangents.

Don't we all...

--A

Of course its natural to slide off point ... occasionally .. I think weve done an acceptable job of trying to expand on the questions originally posited .. so good job all

I love those questions Sorus .. what would humans look like? Would there be "religion" at all? Perhaps .. and what would it look like?

Now that IS intriguing

Skyweir wrote: Would there be "religion" at all? Perhaps .. and what would it look like?

I think there would still be religion. No reason for people to not believe in a higher power and whatnot. Some aspects might not change much. Ancient religions that were heavily into sacrificing domestic animals and whatnot would probably be the most changed - would their gods be less bloodthirsty, or would they have started human sacrifice instead? Even things like the Garden of Eden would have to change a bit. Would gardens even be a thing? Would we be more connected to nature, or less? Would oceans be pristine if we didn't eat fish, or would we trash them out of lack of respect and whatnot?

See, I can't stick to one subject.

I love your "whatnots"

I think your comments are entirely ON topic

But it is a lot of hypotheticals isnt it? I mean it could look one way or it could look a polar opposite How would we know?

Still waiting to hear TOM's theories and whatnot.

Indeed .. I am especially interested in the whatnots

Well, I was trying to start a debate and whatnot, but now I'm feeling like I killed the conversation.

Well you have not killed the conversation .. wed love to hear from TOMi re what he has in mind.

In his absence we are likely to just head off on yet another tangent cos that what we do when we are left to our own devices and what nots no?

Yeah, I think we should just continue to derail this thread again until he shows up to complain.

--A

Im in

So, about those things...

(Totally went blank. )

--A

Well if we are embracing tangent, how about most popular food .. this is unavoidably culturally influenced. Friends post food porn and some .. yeah yum .. but some post plates of fried everything Dont get me wrong I like my greasy delights but not to the point of artery saturation.

That is definitely cultural ... and meat, I eat meat but the thought of sitting down to a huge plate piled high with meat not so much. I do like veggies to break up the meat .. and sauces, even a jus and I have plain tastes

I also like a nice wine .. had the most amazing wines in Adelaide with meals out.

Ok have at it ..

Food leads to kids...
History is on my side...