3 ms·

I think this is ridiculous. The point of food should be to taste good, not for the eater to feel smug for having real expensive stuff on their plate. As long a

I think this is ridiculous. The point of food should be to taste good, not for the eater to feel smug for having real expensive stuff on their plate. As long as my food is delicious, I don't care whether it has the expensive original ingredient or a cheap substitute.

mdp2021 4y ago
> The point of food Oh my. The point of food is to be healthy.
- istjohn 4y ago
  The utility of food has multiple dimensions for most people most of the time.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    Sure. Which remains very far from an idea that "it is there to be tasty". No, it is there to be good.
nomilk 4y ago
In general your idea is good: why use a costly resource when a more affordable one does just as good? But the author (glumly) counters this: so many consumers of truffle receive the substitute which isn't quite as good, and they think that's the true taste of truffles, but it isn't. So they walk away from the experience thinking they've experienced the taste of truffles, but they really haven't. If the truffle substitutes were exactly as good, then your point would hold, but in the case of truffles, at least according to the author, the substitutes don't have the same taste or aroma, or may be truffle but a less palatable species.