5 ms·

What do you mean by "mere taste"? Hominids didn't evolve for 22 million years to have taste buds that are completely useless. More often than not, better tasti

What do you mean by "mere taste"? Hominids didn't evolve for 22 million years to have taste buds that are completely useless. More often than not, better tasting food means it has higher nutritional value. This has been slightly butchered by modern food science when they started mixing chemicals to help sell industry waste as food... but for vast majority of foods that humans culturally ate before the food industry took over, good taste does mean higher nutritional value.

rsynnott 5y ago
> but for vast majority of foods that humans culturally ate before the food industry took over, good taste does mean higher nutritional value Ah, yes, just ask the Romans, who liked to flavor their food with nutritious lead. (The Romans' lead-based flavoring is an extreme example, but people have been eating pretty dubious things, particularly sugar, for a very long time because they taste good)
pmoriarty 5y ago
"What do you mean by "mere taste"? Hominids didn't evolve for 22 million years to have taste buds that are completely useless." Not for nothing. It can be useful and pleasurable, but taste has a dark side as well. Having a sweet-tooth has been a stab in the back for many modern humans, as it leads to over-consumption of sugar, which can be horrible for one's health. More on-topic, the craving for the taste of meat has led to the suffering and slaughter of countless animals.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  >Having a sweet-tooth has been a stab in the back for many modern humans, as it leads to over-consumption of sugar, which can be horrible for one's health. Sugar is overvalued by taste buds because of its low availability when our taste buds evolved. This argument does not extend to every other taste. >More on-topic, the craving for the taste of meat Meat is craved by the taste buds because it is the most nutrient dense natural food... with very few substitutes. All known surviving human cultures eat one of meat, fish or milk; no exceptions. Certain essential nutrients are not bioavailable to us without those. >has led to the suffering and slaughter of countless animals. Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem. Cells die all day but do you mourn their deaths? Zebras die all the time in the savannahs but do you think it is a good idea to capture all lions and feed them fake meat to "reduce animal suffering"? From the ecosystem point of view, individual organisms "suffering" is a part of a much bigger thing where it doesn't matter as much as an individual organism would think.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    "Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem. Cells die all day but do you mourn their deaths? Zebras die all the time in the savannahs but do you think it is a good idea to capture all lions and feed them fake meat to "reduce animal suffering"? From the ecosystem point of view, individual organisms "suffering" is a part of a much bigger thing where it doesn't matter as much as one from a shallow view thinks it does." This exact same argument could be used to dismiss human suffering as well.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      > This exact same argument could be used to dismiss human suffering as well. True. But we don't value human suffering above everything. This is why all known human cultures have had some form of soldiers who are ready to die to protect the tribe, the religion, the culture, the nation or what not... otherwise they wouldn't exist. Not just that, we allow for risky occupations like mining, fishing etc. i.e. things we need for sustenance. We even allow for risky hobbies or sports i.e. just for entertainment. These are clearly more important than "human suffering". You wouldn't choose to die to prolong the lives of the few cells in your infected tooth. You'd remove the tooth instead. Similarly, you'd sacrifice yourself to protect the tribe, family, country etc. And the ecosystem would try to sacrifice you to protect the ecosystem if it comes to that.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    > Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem It’s not a function of having a certain view of ecosystems. It’s as a simple as accepting a few premises: 1. Needless suffering is generally bad 2. In almost all cases amongst those in the developed world, animal products aren’t generally necessary 3. farming animals causes their suffering. This is why we love our dogs and don’t put them in dog fights. Or why we feel bad when we see someone putting kittens in a bag and throwing it in a river.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      >2. In almost all cases amongst those in the developed world, animal products aren’t generally necessary Animal fat in human food was mostly replaced by plant oils in the last 100 years by the food industry, causing increased deficiency in fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K in most of the world population. And that is just a few vitamins. There are other essential amino acids which are only available in animal products... and then there are others which nutrition science is still exploring... except nutrition science is ineffective and generally corrupted by the food industry so it takes a very long time to find out what is really true. What can be believed though is by looking at the history. There are exactly ZERO tribes, cultures, ancient or modern which did not eat animal products. >1. Needless suffering is generally bad That has too many assumptions. What is "needless"? "Bad" for who/what purpose/goal? For instance, one could argue that making humans suffer by depriving humans of essential nutrition for needless reasons like "animal suffering" is generally bad. >3. farming animals causes their suffering. Cooking bread causes suffering to the yeast colony. Yeast colonies are super-organisms (which are higher level organisms than individual yeast cells) and they definitely suffer (in their level of consciousness) when you put the dough in the oven... but if you were looking from a human perspective, you don't care about that. Similarly, from a potentially interplanetary species perspective, herbivores dying is not something we should relate to. You can choose to, but then you can also do that for yeast suffering.
wyre 5y ago
Sunk cost fallacy. 22 million years of evolution doesn’t make up for the millions of birds and other animals we murder everyday for their meat and eggs.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  When disinformation generated by capitalist greed is the source of education, they can make otherwise smart people believe that mass-murdering human babies in the womb is for "health" and hunter-gatherers killing prey animals for food is "murder".
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Ah yes, the capitalist greed of Big Vegetable and Big Abortion. We forget who's _really_ pulling the strings.
sweetheart 5y ago
No one in the developed world uses their taste to determine if they’re eating a balanced diet. We are so beyond that. So it’s kind of irrelevant what our tongues evolved for. This is just a version of the fallacy of nature.
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  > No one in the developed world uses their taste to determine if they’re eating a balanced diet. I know. The developed world relies on food industry disinformation sold as "science". I believe this is the reason why the developed world has the kind of deficiencies and diseases that the indigenous cultures didn't have.
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Sources for either of those claims? Anything causal?
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      These should cover some of it: - Book: Food Politics by Marion Nestle - Book: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price - YouTube Video: The $100 Billion Dollar Ingredient making your Food Toxic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k (28 minutes)

rsynnott 5y ago

> but for vast majority of foods that humans culturally ate before the food industry took over, good taste does mean higher nutritional value Ah, yes, just ask the Romans, who liked to flavor their food with nutritious lead. (The Romans' lead-based flavoring is an extreme example, but people have been eating pretty dubious things, particularly sugar, for a very long time because they taste good)

pmoriarty 5y ago

"What do you mean by "mere taste"? Hominids didn't evolve for 22 million years to have taste buds that are completely useless." Not for nothing. It can be useful and pleasurable, but taste has a dark side as well. Having a sweet-tooth has been a stab in the back for many modern humans, as it leads to over-consumption of sugar, which can be horrible for one's health. More on-topic, the craving for the taste of meat has led to the suffering and slaughter of countless animals.

ComradePhil 5y ago
>Having a sweet-tooth has been a stab in the back for many modern humans, as it leads to over-consumption of sugar, which can be horrible for one's health. Sugar is overvalued by taste buds because of its low availability when our taste buds evolved. This argument does not extend to every other taste. >More on-topic, the craving for the taste of meat Meat is craved by the taste buds because it is the most nutrient dense natural food... with very few substitutes. All known surviving human cultures eat one of meat, fish or milk; no exceptions. Certain essential nutrients are not bioavailable to us without those. >has led to the suffering and slaughter of countless animals. Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem. Cells die all day but do you mourn their deaths? Zebras die all the time in the savannahs but do you think it is a good idea to capture all lions and feed them fake meat to "reduce animal suffering"? From the ecosystem point of view, individual organisms "suffering" is a part of a much bigger thing where it doesn't matter as much as an individual organism would think.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem. Cells die all day but do you mourn their deaths? Zebras die all the time in the savannahs but do you think it is a good idea to capture all lions and feed them fake meat to "reduce animal suffering"? From the ecosystem point of view, individual organisms "suffering" is a part of a much bigger thing where it doesn't matter as much as one from a shallow view thinks it does." This exact same argument could be used to dismiss human suffering as well.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    > This exact same argument could be used to dismiss human suffering as well. True. But we don't value human suffering above everything. This is why all known human cultures have had some form of soldiers who are ready to die to protect the tribe, the religion, the culture, the nation or what not... otherwise they wouldn't exist. Not just that, we allow for risky occupations like mining, fishing etc. i.e. things we need for sustenance. We even allow for risky hobbies or sports i.e. just for entertainment. These are clearly more important than "human suffering". You wouldn't choose to die to prolong the lives of the few cells in your infected tooth. You'd remove the tooth instead. Similarly, you'd sacrifice yourself to protect the tribe, family, country etc. And the ecosystem would try to sacrifice you to protect the ecosystem if it comes to that.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  > Animal "suffering" is completely arbitrary view based on shallow view of the ecosystem It’s not a function of having a certain view of ecosystems. It’s as a simple as accepting a few premises: 1. Needless suffering is generally bad 2. In almost all cases amongst those in the developed world, animal products aren’t generally necessary 3. farming animals causes their suffering. This is why we love our dogs and don’t put them in dog fights. Or why we feel bad when we see someone putting kittens in a bag and throwing it in a river.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    >2. In almost all cases amongst those in the developed world, animal products aren’t generally necessary Animal fat in human food was mostly replaced by plant oils in the last 100 years by the food industry, causing increased deficiency in fat soluble vitamins A, D, E and K in most of the world population. And that is just a few vitamins. There are other essential amino acids which are only available in animal products... and then there are others which nutrition science is still exploring... except nutrition science is ineffective and generally corrupted by the food industry so it takes a very long time to find out what is really true. What can be believed though is by looking at the history. There are exactly ZERO tribes, cultures, ancient or modern which did not eat animal products. >1. Needless suffering is generally bad That has too many assumptions. What is "needless"? "Bad" for who/what purpose/goal? For instance, one could argue that making humans suffer by depriving humans of essential nutrition for needless reasons like "animal suffering" is generally bad. >3. farming animals causes their suffering. Cooking bread causes suffering to the yeast colony. Yeast colonies are super-organisms (which are higher level organisms than individual yeast cells) and they definitely suffer (in their level of consciousness) when you put the dough in the oven... but if you were looking from a human perspective, you don't care about that. Similarly, from a potentially interplanetary species perspective, herbivores dying is not something we should relate to. You can choose to, but then you can also do that for yeast suffering.

wyre 5y ago

Sunk cost fallacy. 22 million years of evolution doesn’t make up for the millions of birds and other animals we murder everyday for their meat and eggs.

ComradePhil 5y ago
When disinformation generated by capitalist greed is the source of education, they can make otherwise smart people believe that mass-murdering human babies in the womb is for "health" and hunter-gatherers killing prey animals for food is "murder".
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Ah yes, the capitalist greed of Big Vegetable and Big Abortion. We forget who's _really_ pulling the strings.

sweetheart 5y ago

No one in the developed world uses their taste to determine if they’re eating a balanced diet. We are so beyond that. So it’s kind of irrelevant what our tongues evolved for. This is just a version of the fallacy of nature.

ComradePhil 5y ago
> No one in the developed world uses their taste to determine if they’re eating a balanced diet. I know. The developed world relies on food industry disinformation sold as "science". I believe this is the reason why the developed world has the kind of deficiencies and diseases that the indigenous cultures didn't have.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Sources for either of those claims? Anything causal?
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    These should cover some of it: - Book: Food Politics by Marion Nestle - Book: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price - YouTube Video: The $100 Billion Dollar Ingredient making your Food Toxic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQmqVVmMB3k (28 minutes)