Kevin's Watch

What if food never developed into a form of entertainment?

Suppose thousands of years ago humans developed a basic singular food that met all the nutritional requirements of the body and was never thought of as anything but generic sustenance the way air is viewed in order to breathe?

Suppose, culturally, no one on Earth developed a need to eat or drink any more than was required, ever. No humans ever became overweight by excessive intake. It simply never became a thing.

Imagine the state of modern medicine if it wasn't clogged with treatments and cures for ailments produced by diet as everyone had been eating exactly the same thing for millennia and healthcare was left to focus exclusively on injuries and non diet related diseases.

Imagine the human condition if historically our genetics had not been potentially altered by the consumption foods and drink that exceed the basic requirements.
What would the human race be like without obesity? Possibly heart disease?

One can accurately argue that "it is what it is" and we humans developed our eating habits by necessity. That the supply of edible food and potable water had to be incredibly diverse to be resistant against famine and radical natural climate change.
But what if that wasn't an issue?

Suppose we were able to release the basic nutritional requirements for life into the atmosphere the way we add fluoride into the water supply and all we had to do was breathe in order to receive sustenance? No one on Earth would ever die of hunger so long as the supply was kept up.

Just a thought born from a conversation I had recently.

The quest for sustenance birthed our intelligence.

The question leads also to that of why food consumption over reached in the way it did into both entertainment and psychological comfort blanket. The entertainment aspect breaks down further into it's social side and it's solitary side, relating to bonding and boredom respectively. Clearly the social side is closely knit to the use of fire - grouping around the fire for warmth, grouping around the fire to cook, grouping around the fire to eat. In addition to the familial bonding of close knit groups we can extend the deadline to that of sitting down with potential foes to establish bonds of trust and friendship; you won't fight with the same person you have fed with (what adds an extra layer of horror to the actions of Vlad the Impaler, by virtue of his habit of eschewing this unwritten law and butchering those he had just dined with).
Perhaps it is this last aspect of eating for entertainment that if removed, would have resulted in the biggest change to our future course. Without the twin aspects of common religion and social eating might we still be roaming the world in small extended family bands, killing each other by rote whenever we met?

I like these "what if?" quandries, Atomic.

My first thoughts are that so much pleasure would be lost.
(and I'm not even someone who's super-super-interested in good food. Except to fiercely avoid stuff I don't feel like eating.)

Yeah, the relationships formed around food are huge.
Organizing a social event... "involve food" is one of the most surefire strategies for getting things to work.
Also, it's like... something everyone can do. (basically. almost.)
Not everyone is going to want to play this or that boardgame together, can't "talk shop" in various conversations, but we can all eat together.

And it's a conversation topic for people who don't know each-other, even who are from different cultures.
You need no excuse - everyone has to eat, and everyone understands the pleasure of it.

I think it's really sweet that there's this huge variety of foods that nourish us, and you need to get a variety, and that people need to be fed, and that it can also be a pleasure.
it's like a theological pleasure for me to think about being dependent on stuff God provides, (and that people provide!) and that being taken care of can also involve pleasure, curiosity, and variety.
(this is in the theoretical side... when meditating on it I'm like, "oh, that's objectively so cool." then, on the personal side... maan.. I don't like to cook, even for others. and I don't like stopping what I'm doing to eat. also, family literally called me to come eat while I was writing this post, and I dawdled...)

We're human creatures, we have senses, and even that is pretty cool.
I think of hobbits... delighting in the pleasures of food, but still able to exercise strong character & courage when needed.

But then we humans do also tend to be pretty dysfunctional about food, as you alluded, aTOMic, and use it for what it's not intended for.

Love this..

The quest for sustenance birthed our intelligence

Niiiicccee.

Yes TOM this would be a very different world indeed.

Yep, and not only that, but the type of sustenance had a big impact too. It was shellfish that did it.

--A

As an extension of this discussion we can think of a time not very far away (according to an article I read not long ago) when population numbers and tech advancements actually take the entertainment/social part of food away from its basic nutritional function by the mass production of 'nutrient sachets' etc upon which the bulk of people will be compelled to survive. Actual eating of food as we understand it will be a luxury extra enjoyed by (you guessed it) the elite few who can afford it - for the rest it will be a dream that they will never experience.

Thatd be right

But that would have to be some bleak future several hundred years from now .. where no one lives on the land, cant harvest their own food, prepare it for themselves etc

It certainly seeks to be a trending but there is also an organic growing trend too.. that seems natural healthy alternatives to processed foods and even nutrient sachets lol

Yes, it's probably inevitable, mainly because of food security and the amount of land under cultivation etc. in comparison to what is required for populations. Meat in particular will go quickly...within the next 100 years people will be vegetarian from necessity. (Except for the super-rich of course. )

--A

Good point.

Forced vegetarianism would not be a bad thing for overall human health.

Meh. I wouldn't like it.

--A

Not sure approval would be part of that equation

Though I will note that farmed animals are not under threat of extinction. Youre right it would be a measure about land use.

Bloody vegans are going to win afterall.

--A

Hahahahaha

No real thoughts on the post other than it bringing to mind the Roman historian Livy. He wrote that chefs becoming celebrities was a sign of the decline of a civilization.

Alas tis true

Skyweir wrote: Though I will note that farmed animals are not under threat of extinction.

They will be if we stop farming them...

--A

You know Im sitting here away from home feeling.a tad hungry ... but cooking is yuk in a foreign kitchen. Its uninspiring. Id be happy to have one of Petes nutritional sachets right now .. eating is a pain and a bother

Were T. there to whip up a meal, you'd eat readily enough.

It's interesting. I find that while cooking for my household is often the highlight of my day (to the extent that I sometimes feel disappointed when they want us to dine out), if they are out on their own, I have zero interest in cooking for myself, even in my familiar kitchen. Perhaps "food as entertainment" applies to the preparation as well as the consumption...

Since you are in this situation for a few weeks, familiarize yourself with the 'foreign' kitchen enough that you manage at least minimal sustenance.

Blech

If T was here Id not have to worry .. but like you its not the same cooking for myself.

I love preparing food for family and guests, I especially love making my kids faves .. but if its just me blech

I did cook myself some eggs on toast .. but it wasnt all that nice .. they cooked like they were poached.. all white still. The stove is a modern electric stove .. seems to be a slow heat. Nah Ill buy something tomorrow.