On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:

> A guy from a hundred years or more ago would probably plotz if he could get his
> hands on a Happy Meal or a Hot Pocket.

Well, yeah. We're genetically programmed to prefer fat and sugar.

> The reality is that foods in the era before refrigeration, preservatives, and
> modern processing, were more dangerous - the Jews and Muslims knew this and
> made certain foods and practices taboo.

Although it's a happy coincidence that Kashrut and Halal regulations
make food somewhat safer (and may have actually developed through trial
and error--mainly error), their main result was to differentiate who
was in the tribe and who was out of the tribe. Many of the taboos
in Kashrut have nothing to do with food safety. For example, eels are
no more or less safe than carp, yet because they have no discernible
fins or scales, are forbidden.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
says...
>
> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > A guy from a hundred years or more ago would probably plotz if he could get his
> > hands on a Happy Meal or a Hot Pocket.
>
> Well, yeah. We're genetically programmed to prefer fat and sugar.
>
> > The reality is that foods in the era before refrigeration, preservatives, and
> > modern processing, were more dangerous - the Jews and Muslims knew this and
> > made certain foods and practices taboo.
>
> Although it's a happy coincidence that Kashrut and Halal regulations
> make food somewhat safer (and may have actually developed through trial
> and error--mainly error), their main result was to differentiate who
> was in the tribe and who was out of the tribe. Many of the taboos
> in Kashrut have nothing to do with food safety. For example, eels are
> no more or less safe than carp, yet because they have no discernible
> fins or scales, are forbidden.

Humans behave idiotically at the intersection of food and religion.

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 5:11:54 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-08-04 4:02 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 3:54:11 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2016-08-04 2:49 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 8:29:09 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Your guess is pretty close. There are a lot of things that you didn't
> >> get unless they were produced nearby, especially the more perishable
> >> fruits. It took too long to transport them and they did not have
> >> refrigeration. When I was a kid in the 50s we had mostly locally grown
> >> fruits, and only when they were in season. Oranges were a rare treat.
> >> Kiwis, mangoes and their ilk.... never heard of them.
> >
> > Of course, but somebody, somewhere was eating mangoes. It's not
> > all about U.S. and Canadian culture.
>
> True, but there were lots of things we eat that they weren't eating either.

This sub-thread started out with the notion that our future food would
be manufactured rather than grown, and that in 100 years what people
eat would be as different from today's food as today's food is from the
food of 100 years ago. My contention is that our diets are not all that
different from 100 years ago, particularly if one cooks from scratch.
Sure, I eat sushi and my great-grandmother didn't, but the technology
of fishing, growing and cooking rice, etc., produce a result that is
not all that different from a century ago. The big revolution that has
changed our diets has been in transportation and communication, not in
agriculture.

> > There's a big world out there,
> > and and awful lot of them eat just as their ancestors did.
>
> Yep, their respective ancestors. It wasn't just about them either.
>
>
>
> >> Some of the fruits were much different than what we see. In colonial
> >> times apples were not the tasty eating type we see now. They were more
> >> commonly used as a sweetener for baking, and the other thing they were
> >> used for was making cider.... hard cider and apple jack.
> >
> > This is all true. Yet, if we jumped in our time machine and gave
> > a Honeycrisp apple to my great-great-great grandmother and said,
> > "This is sweet enough to eat", I'm sure she would.
>
> Apparently someone did start eating them fresh and whole rather than in
> baked goods or in a glass.

Apple industry propaganda in (IIRC) the early 20th Century.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 5:27:40 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:

> Fruits in the wild did not develop over hundreds of thousand of years to
> appeal to the human eye or be tasty to us humanoids. That would not make
> much evolutionary sense.

Humans have done more for the evolution of tasty and attractive produce
than natural evolution ever did, starting with the domestication of wheat
10,000 years ago.

I recommend The Botany of Desire, by Michael Pollen. It's brief look
into the recent evolution of four plant species, and makes a nice
"think piece" for considering other species.

Cindy Hamilton

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 6:17:28 AM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > > A guy from a hundred years or more ago would probably plotz if he could get his
> > > hands on a Happy Meal or a Hot Pocket.
> >
> > Well, yeah. We're genetically programmed to prefer fat and sugar.
> >
> > > The reality is that foods in the era before refrigeration, preservatives, and
> > > modern processing, were more dangerous - the Jews and Muslims knew this and
> > > made certain foods and practices taboo.
> >
> > Although it's a happy coincidence that Kashrut and Halal regulations
> > make food somewhat safer (and may have actually developed through trial
> > and error--mainly error), their main result was to differentiate who
> > was in the tribe and who was out of the tribe. Many of the taboos
> > in Kashrut have nothing to do with food safety. For example, eels are
> > no more or less safe than carp, yet because they have no discernible
> > fins or scales, are forbidden.
>
> Humans behave idiotically at the intersection of food and religion.

Humans behave idiotically at the intersection of everything and religion.
Still, some of us seem to need it.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message
...

This sub-thread started out with the notion that our future food would
be manufactured rather than grown, and that in 100 years what people
eat would be as different from today's food as today's food is from the
food of 100 years ago. My contention is that our diets are not all that
different from 100 years ago, particularly if one cooks from scratch.

------------------------------------------

True in my family. I cook the same foods now that my grandmother and her
mother before her cooked. In fact I am still using their baking tins.





--
http;//www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On Friday, August 5, 2016 at 12:12:36 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 4:59:28 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > A guy from a hundred years or more ago would probably plotz if he could get his
> > hands on a Happy Meal or a Hot Pocket.
>
> Well, yeah. We're genetically programmed to prefer fat and sugar.
>
> > The reality is that foods in the era before refrigeration, preservatives, and
> > modern processing, were more dangerous - the Jews and Muslims knew this and
> > made certain foods and practices taboo.
>
> Although it's a happy coincidence that Kashrut and Halal regulations
> make food somewhat safer (and may have actually developed through trial
> and error--mainly error), their main result was to differentiate who
> was in the tribe and who was out of the tribe. Many of the taboos
> in Kashrut have nothing to do with food safety. For example, eels are
> no more or less safe than carp, yet because they have no discernible
> fins or scales, are forbidden.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Many restrictions on foods and practices were meant to differentiate between groups and classes. OTOH, the foods of the past could kill you. The taboos that were put in place were a practical solution to this problem. It has also been suggested that food sustainability account for some taboos i.e., the raising of a pig or a cow tends to cost a lot in terms of resources.

In the modern age, the idea has been put forth to start a religious order with a tradition of taboos dealing with the long term storage of nuclear waste. Religious traditions, it seems, have a longer lifespan than generational memory and traditions.