Live data from Hacker News

Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

hoover.org

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#11
These issues are simpler to explain than the author realizes--and without any special invocation of Kant. Simply put, technology has made sex a lot safer at the same time as it has made food a lot more dangerous. Sex is safer (in the sense of creating fewer risks and uncertainties), as we all know, thanks to developments like condoms, STD testing, contraception, and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, food is a lot more dangerous, thanks to food science being used to create "hyperpalatable" junk food--cf. Paul Graham's "The Acceleration of Addictiveness."[1] As a 20-something in the U.S., I look around me and see obesity as an almost guaranteed outcome once people reach a certain age (with diabetes and heart disease not far behind)--and like many of my peers, I'm spooked.

In response to this, I wouldn't exactly say people have made healthy eating into a new Categorical Imperative. Instead, they've become paranoid and superstitious about what it is in modern food that's hurting them. Hence we get ridiculous cargo cults like gluten-free, organic, anti-GMO, everything Dr. Oz pushes, etc. Meanwhile, evidence-based approaches to the issue have not yet produced a diet that is optimal, practical, and that provides the level of enjoyment that we're used to from food. I personally think that Soylent is off to a promising start, although it has a long way to go.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#12
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have helped if you read the entire essay. I was a kid during that 1958 description, and it is exactly what was happening in my house (Alexandria, VA). My mom wasn't shopping at farmers markets. And now no one particularly cares how much sex you have in the privacy of your home, but "food woo" is rampant, and if you are feeding your kids gluten, well, you are just a bad parent. At the moment my father is havi…

(Split answers between "food" and "sex".) > there is little or no limit on your private sexual behavior now Umm, what about the increasing restrictions on access to abortion, and the continued efforts to prevent teaching effective birth control methods? Instead, over the last 25 years or so there's been increased funding for "abstinence only" methods, which result in making it harder for people to know what sexual fr…

Last I checked, attending San Diego Christian College or pursuing private religious employment is kinda a voluntary deal which a very, very small portion of the population pursues, and when they do so it is frequently because they agree with the ideals the college or the religious employers represent. Are these counterexamples really supposed to represent the worst out there?

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#13
post #5
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations. To start, "What happens when, for the first time in history, adult human beings are free to have all the sex and food they want?" This is only true for a subset of the people, but it's always been true for a subset of the people. When I read about the nobility of the 1600s, I see that there was a whole lot…

It would have helped if you read the entire essay. I was a kid during that 1958 description, and it is exactly what was happening in my house (Alexandria, VA). My mom wasn't shopping at farmers markets. And now no one particularly cares how much sex you have in the privacy of your home, but "food woo" is rampant, and if you are feeding your kids gluten, well, you are just a bad parent. At the moment my father is havi…

>No, the freedom to have all the sex you want is new, for pretty much everyone in the US. Not everyone takes advantage of it, but there is little or no limit on your private sexual behavior now. Just consider gay marriage. And there was a huge risk with private sexual behavior back then.

The fact that prostitution is still illegal pretty much blows your whole argument there out of the water, skip. Nobdoy has the freedom to do that, do they (outside of extremely remote parts of Nevada)? And really, lets face it, that's pretty much the only way that a lot of people can ever hope to even have sex -- take cripples, mentally handicapped, or people just considered slightly undesirable by arbitrary and inescapable standards of pop culture. So this pretty much blows your whole disingenuous argument out of the water, doesn't it?

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#14
post #4
post #2

I thought this was the craziest title, until I read the entire essay. And now I think the author has made a very deep analysis of modern society. It's almost as if there is a conservation law for conservative ideas. Sex isn't doing it anymore, so we are switching to food where we impose moral judgements on others who are "doing it wrong".

I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations. To start, "What happens when, for the first time in history, adult human beings are free to have all the sex and food they want?" This is only true for a subset of the people, but it's always been true for a subset of the people. When I read about the nobility of the 1600s, I see that there was a whole lot…

You're really picking at surface issues in the first few paragraphs that are wholly unimportant to the message of the article (which wasn't overly conservative or political at all). It's worth a read if you can manage to look past your biases.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#15
Employment conditions are scary, marriage seems to have stabilized at a much lower equilibrium, housing is no longer the bastion of security it once was, etc. I look around at my peers and I see people who don't feel that they are in control of their lives. This winds up going one of two ways. Either food is seen as one last unadulterated pleasure and abused, or tightly regimented as one last bastion of control. I think the health food sector is growing because it gives people a sense of autonomy, when that feeling is in short supply.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#17

These issues are simpler to explain than the author realizes--and without any special invocation of Kant. Simply put, technology has made sex a lot safer at the same time as it has made food a lot more dangerous . Sex is safer (in the sense of creating fewer risks and uncertainties), as we all know, thanks to developments like condoms, STD testing, contraception, and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, food is a lot more…

> made food a lot more dangerous

You are almost certainly too young to remember it in the United States, but it wasn't that long ago that food was terribly dangerous. Start at non-sterile meat, bad canning practices (botulism killed 2,000+ per year in the United States until around WWII, down to a handful today) and go all the way to pellagra (an easily-solved Vitamin B deficiency that still killed 7500 people per year in the US in the 1930s; effectively 0 today).

Remember Wonder Bread? It seems like evil simple carbs today, but it was initially popular precisely because the color and texture proved that it wasn't adulterated like many local bakers did at the time (flour was expensive, sawdust was cheap and could stretch meager supplies).

Food was not safe for a long time.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#18

These issues are simpler to explain than the author realizes--and without any special invocation of Kant. Simply put, technology has made sex a lot safer at the same time as it has made food a lot more dangerous . Sex is safer (in the sense of creating fewer risks and uncertainties), as we all know, thanks to developments like condoms, STD testing, contraception, and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, food is a lot more…

[deleted]

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#19

These issues are simpler to explain than the author realizes--and without any special invocation of Kant. Simply put, technology has made sex a lot safer at the same time as it has made food a lot more dangerous . Sex is safer (in the sense of creating fewer risks and uncertainties), as we all know, thanks to developments like condoms, STD testing, contraception, and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, food is a lot more…

Whether or not an organic diet (whatever that may be exactly) ultimately proves to be healthier, it's wrong to describe the movement to eat such food as a "ridiculous cargo cult". It's clear what people are worried about (dangerous pesticides, environmental pollutants) and the expectation that food labeled as organic is better in this respect is not unreasonable. Whether or not labeling food "certified organic" makes enough of a difference is a different discussion; clearly there is no substitute for knowing where your food comes from.

The fact that you lump this in with gluten-free and anti-GMO, which are themselves interesting and unique topics of discussion that have in common only their faddishness, and then lump all three of these in with a charlatan like Dr. Oz, shows to me that you have an oversimplified view of these issues.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#20
post #10

We know what happens when humans are free to have all the food we want. They get fat. Next question. The food guilt thing is a product of marketing. Visit a Whole Foods and look at the displays. Sex guilt is back. (For straight people only.) It's not clear why. In the US, it's not due to religion; the religious right peaked in the last century. There are whole new areas of guilt since the 1980s, from sexual harassmen…

"We know what happens when humans are free to have all the food we want. They get fat. Next question".

I'm not so sure about that, not all societies that can "have all the food" they want are fat, for example France.

Post reply on HN