Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

hoover.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#31

Post by jp555 »

slapshot wrote: post #17
sowhatquestion wrote: post #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…

> 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 ye…

Sterile meat? Yuk! Why would someone want sterile meat? The best beef for example has been tenderized by bacteria for several weeks before being butchered.

There's maybe a couple dozen kinds of bacteria that pose a threat, the vast majority are either benign or good for us.

Attempting to eliminate food danger can paradoxically increase the danger. If you go to a grocery in Europe you'll see eggs sitting on shelves instead of inside the fridge as you'd see in the US. This is because eggs in the US are cleaned so much that the egg's cuticle is washed away, which is the egg's natural barrier to bacteria. In Europe they do not wash the cuticle away and eggs store safely on room-temp shelves.

I'd suggest that sterile meat is more dangerous as it is devoid of the natural bacterial "cloak" that provides protection from the nasty bugs.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#32

Post by pizza234 »

sowhatquestion wrote: post #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…

> Hence we get ridiculous cargo cults like gluten-free, organic, anti-GMO, everything Dr. Oz pushes

As a 20-something in the US, you're certainly very uninformed.

Gluten free, organic and anti-gmo have nothing to do with cargo cults and food fanatism.

Essentially nobody buys gluten-free products because they're gluten free (except who needs it). GF products are a very little minority, because the lack of gluten is a serious limitation in food preparation. Plus, such products are very expesive. Nobody turns "gluten-free" unless he has to.

Organic is part of a bigger cultural picture. In some countries, the majority of the people eat [much] organic. Nobody expects to become super fit and super healthy from it. It's just a choice judged to be healthier as a whole. It's actually the opposite of a cargo cult, since people who choose organic, do it for life, not to follow a fad who lasts a short time (which is essential to cargo culting).

And finally, it's not smart to bash anti-GMO just because smart people are supposed to be pro-GMO. There are also rational reasons for being anti-GMO and cretinic reasons for being pro-GMO (like assuming that the increased yield of a crop automatically implies economic convenience).

If Soylent is optimal and provides enjoyment, well, you better move to another country and try real food. Besides, in the bigger picture, Soylent carries the assumption that human nutrition is nothing else than intake of isolated nutritional elements, which is foolish.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#33

Post by ringolo »

tacon wrote: 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".

Like sex, food is essential to survival as a species. When things are essential, there are always ways to do it "wrong" :)

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#34

Post by pdeuchler »

dalke wrote: post #4
tacon wrote: 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…

>> I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations.

...

>> Remember too the author writes for the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. As such, works from them are more likely to be aligned with conservative views, and not, say, rail against patriarchy.

There's no need to politicize the article and then make subjective judgements based on your affiliations... Read the article for its merits. She talks about a lot more than just veggies.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#35

Post by sowhatquestion »

ambler0 wrote: post #19
sowhatquestion wrote: post #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…

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…

> you have an oversimplified view of these issues

Nice try, but no.

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries." (emphasis mine)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone...

"Study of 100 Billion Animals Finds GMOs Safe"

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/comprehensive-s...

"A recent study has shown that for those with non-Celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), the gluten itself might not be to blame for GI troubles."

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/does-non-celia...

"Organic food no more nutritious than conventionally grown food"

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/organic-food-no-more-nutr...

...

Admittedly, the issue of organic food is more controversial than the others. There was also a study showing that organic foods had higher levels of antioxidants: http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-organic-foods-20140715...

But given the amount of money people spend on organic food and the level of enthusiasm for it, you would think it cured cancer--not that there was inconclusive evidence that it might have somewhat higher levels of antioxidants and lower levels of pesticide residue. In any case, antioxidants can be supplemented, much more cheaply than buying organic food. But that doesn't provide the level of enjoyment (or for some people, the pseudo-religious experience) of buying organic produce.

And THAT is as complex as I think the issue is. The term "cargo cult" hits close enough to the mark, for me.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#36

Post by whiddershins »

I don't agree with the first paragraph, that social mores exist to limit the danger of uninhibited indulgence in sex. I think most if not all (other than disease) downsides of sexual indulgence are because it violates customs. The author has that completely backwards.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#38

Post by fibbery »

whiddershins wrote: post #36

I don't agree with the first paragraph, that social mores exist to limit the danger of uninhibited indulgence in sex. I think most if not all (other than disease) downsides of sexual indulgence are because it violates customs. The author has that completely backwards.

So you think "customs" are totally arbitrary? Not following the logic.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#39

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jp555 wrote: post #31
slapshot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ye…

Sterile meat? Yuk! Why would someone want sterile meat? The best beef for example has been tenderized by bacteria for several weeks before being butchered. There's maybe a couple dozen kinds of bacteria that pose a threat, the vast majority are either benign or good for us. Attempting to eliminate food danger can paradoxically increase the danger. If you go to a grocery in Europe you'll see eggs sitting on shelves in…

> Why would someone want sterile meat?

Maybe because they've had a nasty encounter with food poisoning?

> I'd suggest that sterile meat is more dangerous as it is devoid of the natural bacterial "cloak" that provides protection from the nasty bugs.

I'd like to see a reference to a scientific study that demonstrated that.

Re: Is Food the New Sex? (2009)

#40

Post by innguest »

pdeuchler wrote: post #34
dalke wrote: 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…

>> I found it difficult to read the entire essay, so I didn't. I had problems with a lot of the characterizations. ... >> Remember too the author writes for the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. As such, works from them are more likely to be aligned with conservative views, and not, say, rail against patriarchy. There's no need to politicize the article and then make subjective judgements based on your aff…

It is important to know who is making the argument in order to evaluate possible incentives, biases or an agenda.

The parent isn't politicizing anything, they are saying a true statement that they think can be important for discriminating minds to help evaluate the claims in a richer context of important background information.

Your knee-jerk reaction to this particular truth says a lot about you. For the benefit of others, however, I'd appreciate if you would let us read what others have to say, instead of encouraging censorship.

Post reply on HN