Sunday, December 26, 2010
Man v. Food - the first of 1000 cuts
To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: "the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer."
I thought about this on Christmas day as the Travel Network's 'Man v. Food' marathon was playing as background to a family gathering. Casually, we watched Adam Richman eat a seventy-two ounce steak, the world's biggest burger, and a two pound 'Dagwood' sandwich, while our own six pound pork roast smelled delicious roasting in the oven.
A call to give up meat is too predictable. I enjoy a nice cut of meat for dinner. It is satisfying and complete. Besides that, totalitarian control, a memory that still haunts the American phyche when considering socialism, spawns from the basic notions of dietary control. This naive socialist is not interested in a command control basic human dignities. It is not my desire to judge the number of calories that anybody consumes or preach the virtues of a vegan diet.
But it is the examination of gluttony as entertainment that begins to expose the kernel argument of why America needs socialism.
Consider a poor child at Christmas. The child does not know why she is poor and probably doesn't really think much about being poor. It is just the way life is for her. A day or so before 'the big day', she goes to the church or other charity outreach with her mother to collect a contribution so that Christmas will exist in some fashion. What is the cultural disconnect for this child who is just barely not hungry, when images of excess and gluttony flood our way of life? Maybe she thinks that one day when she is grown up, she too will eat an eight patty hamburger because that is part of our American experience. The 10,000 gallons of water consumed to create that experience does not resonate with her. She only wants to experience what others do. The die of consumption has been cast. The blinding quest for riches and comparative experience is begun. Frustration is ensured.
I love to eat good food as much as any American does, and probably more so. As I examine the cultural and social costs of my food consumption, I take a step back to consider a slightly different way of relating to the society in which I live. Are there ways that I can be more socially responsible to others while perfectly and completely sustaining my life? There are. For one, I will not buy the beer advertised on the Travel Channel during the 'Man v. Food' Christmas day marathon. Second, I will continue to savor and enjoy beef, but only when celebrating life's landmarks. These are my personal pledges.
Social change is not lastingly achieved in revolutionary swings. Social welfare must be assured by a critical mass of collective small changes. Make no mistake, I absolutely call for the overthrow of the American Plutocracy and establishment of Democratic Socialism. However, direct political engagement, while satisfying, is imprudent.
Victory will come from a thousand small cuts.
I thought about this on Christmas day as the Travel Network's 'Man v. Food' marathon was playing as background to a family gathering. Casually, we watched Adam Richman eat a seventy-two ounce steak, the world's biggest burger, and a two pound 'Dagwood' sandwich, while our own six pound pork roast smelled delicious roasting in the oven.
A call to give up meat is too predictable. I enjoy a nice cut of meat for dinner. It is satisfying and complete. Besides that, totalitarian control, a memory that still haunts the American phyche when considering socialism, spawns from the basic notions of dietary control. This naive socialist is not interested in a command control basic human dignities. It is not my desire to judge the number of calories that anybody consumes or preach the virtues of a vegan diet.
But it is the examination of gluttony as entertainment that begins to expose the kernel argument of why America needs socialism.
Consider a poor child at Christmas. The child does not know why she is poor and probably doesn't really think much about being poor. It is just the way life is for her. A day or so before 'the big day', she goes to the church or other charity outreach with her mother to collect a contribution so that Christmas will exist in some fashion. What is the cultural disconnect for this child who is just barely not hungry, when images of excess and gluttony flood our way of life? Maybe she thinks that one day when she is grown up, she too will eat an eight patty hamburger because that is part of our American experience. The 10,000 gallons of water consumed to create that experience does not resonate with her. She only wants to experience what others do. The die of consumption has been cast. The blinding quest for riches and comparative experience is begun. Frustration is ensured.
I love to eat good food as much as any American does, and probably more so. As I examine the cultural and social costs of my food consumption, I take a step back to consider a slightly different way of relating to the society in which I live. Are there ways that I can be more socially responsible to others while perfectly and completely sustaining my life? There are. For one, I will not buy the beer advertised on the Travel Channel during the 'Man v. Food' Christmas day marathon. Second, I will continue to savor and enjoy beef, but only when celebrating life's landmarks. These are my personal pledges.
Social change is not lastingly achieved in revolutionary swings. Social welfare must be assured by a critical mass of collective small changes. Make no mistake, I absolutely call for the overthrow of the American Plutocracy and establishment of Democratic Socialism. However, direct political engagement, while satisfying, is imprudent.
Victory will come from a thousand small cuts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)