Victoria Boutin
Jesse Miller
English 110
27 March 2020
Could Combining Be the Solution?
The meaning and importance behind food has taken many sharp turns throughout the last decade and it is incredible to see how the different forms of food can affect every individual and their families. It has gone from families scavenging for their own food and making a home cooked meal, to mixing a simple liquid and powder to form an on-the-go drink in replace of a meal. Of course, these are two extremes that have many scenarios that fall in between, but it’s the fact that these two extremes have come alive that show the real evolution of meals and food today. It is mind blowing, considering that homecooked meals are almost extinct in most families. The basic idea of cooking has been lost due to the fact that we have jobs and busier schedules, and people to do the work for us. On top of all of that we have so many different and quicker options to use instead, allowing us to take the easier way out. Having other people make these meals for us; whether out at a restaurant or premade and frozen, is much easier and more efficient. We’ve created a new way that is easier and less time consuming but have lost sight of the true meaning behind what it is like to prepare the food, and spend less time intertwined with the chaos of the outside world.
Both extremes are brought up in readings we have digested in class and can allow you to open your eyes as to how this world is truly transforming the way families spend time preparing their meals. When comparing the two articles Can Planet Earth Feed 10 Billion People by Charles C Mann and The End of Food by Lizzie Widdicombe, one can essentially see three major contrasting outlooks. All having the common idea about how food holds its meaning, they contradict each other while going in depth about what is to come. In Mann’s essay, he talks about two views; one from the side of Prophets and the other from the side of Wizards. William Vogt, parting sides with the Prophets argues that “if we continue taking more than the earth can give, the unavoidable results will be devastation on a global scale” (Mann 2). In the eyes of most, this pinpoints the idea that the world today, being more consumerist than producing, needs to slow down and reevaluate the importance of food, and notice the decline of essential products. Norman Borlaug contradicts this idea and leans toward the side of the Wizards and states his view that “science and technology will let us produce a way out of our predicament” and that “affluence was not the problem… Only getting richer and more knowledgeable can humankind create the science that will resolve our environmental dilemmas” (Mann 2-3). Many are quick to turn away from the fact that with more money and more technology we could essentially produce more and pull us out of a hole where consuming is overpowering our production. The Prophets and Wizards have two points proving to be opposites; with each argument having positive and negative effects, combining them could give us a productive outcome, but who knows for how long. Combing these two ideas, using strategic compensation, will allow them to focus on both their missions and objectives, and help them land somewhere in the middle, developing an overall better outcome.
Many families strive to have their whole family under one roof for dinner, but when trying to work around everyone’s busy schedules, we seem to fall short of that line of vision. This leads many to search for an easier solution. InWiddicombe’s interviews with an entrepreneur, Rob Rinehart, she was introduced to the idea of a Soylent; an on the go drink that allows people to maintain all of their essential nutrients. In Rinehart’s eyes, “It’s kind of an overall food substitute. In theory you could live on this entirely. In fact, you’d be pretty healthy” (Widdicombe 11). With the combination of a liquid and a powder, Rinehart believes this new idea can be a quicker and more affordable way to have a ‘meal’, while cutting back on the number of products used. In my eyes, he looks past what the importance of a true sit-down meal is for some families. Again, there are pros and cons to every invention, but with this Soylent, it ignores the crucial aspect of socialization and congregation. Allowing people to hit pause on their chaotic life and sit down to relax and have a meal is always important. Obviously, many families have different routines and lifestyles, but finding something that falls somewhere in the middle of a homecooked meal and a substitute of a meal could be the solution we need.
An excellent way to generate new ideas is to combine them and build on existing ideas, to produce an outcome even stronger than the ones standing alone. With Rinehart’s idea of the Soylent, the Prophet’s idea of cutting back, and the Wizard’s idea of producing more, allowing each to intertwine with one another could essentially be our best outcome. Each idea contradicts one another in some way but are all on the same wavelength of finding a solution that can best help our growing population. The Wizards are head strong about the idea that planting genetically modified food can allow the rate of crop production to increase, essentially giving us more. They have an idea that allowing crops to produce more at a quicker rate is our best solution, but no one truly knows if this can withstand the inevitable increase in our population. With this ever-changing population, trying to create more land for crop production cannot be sustainable forever. This solution is also not universally applicable since many people despise the idea of having their food genetically modified. For some, this may lead them to lean more toward the side of the Prophets. Their unique idea is to just cut back all together, because if we consume less, then we will have enough for the incoming population. But who really knows if this will come together either. Each of these theories have strong points, but there are identifiable places where they fall short. If we combine the strengths of each of these three suggestions, we are bound to find something that could work, all while having a stronger base behind this new formation. With each and every outlook being backed up with supporting evidence, it can be troublesome to come to a conclusion as to what is truly best and most efficient. Is it going to be more technology based, less consuming based, or just a new alternative all together? With plotting out a spectrum, and having two ideas fall on opposite ends, it is safe to say that landing yourself somewhere in the middle, while going off of the idea of the Soylent, could be a step in the right direction.
While absorbing all of the information from each of these three ideas, I’ve noticed that in some way, food still holds its importance, but in a variety of different forms for a variety of different people. Unlike the Prophets, the Wizards have this idea that technology advancement can allow us to create new solutions to get us out of this predicament of over consumption. Although we are consuming too much, instead of cutting back and creating something equal for everyone, why can’t we advance and develop something to give us more than what we already have? On the other hand, maybe cutting back is the option; allowing us to consume less, but still obtain the essentials we need to survive. Rinehart’s creation of the Soylent pinpoints this idea exactly. Something like the smoothie is providing the nutrients we need without the hassle of preparation and without requiring any food at all! For many, this wouldn’t be applicable to their everyday lives. This Soylent dismisses the aspects of socialization and the congregation of family around the dinner table. Taking away something that many see as a necessity and a tradition that could never be broken isn’t an option for a good chunk of people. However, perhaps veering off of Rinehart’s idea could be beneficial. For example, allowing technology to help us advance our rate of food production while resisting genetic modification could be a possibility. Even making time for a Soylent once a week or for one meal a day, but still creating time for a sit-down meal could please others. For everyone, food preparation and consumption effects their lives in different ways. Using multiple ideas from varying sources to create many solutions rather than one universal one is by far our best option. In all, food is an essential to our everyday lives, and finding a way to allow us to fulfill everyone’s needs is something we will continue to give our outstanding attention to. Allowing everyone to have options regarding how their food is prepared and consumed is essential to sustainability for everyone.
Works Cited
Charles C. Mann. “Can Planet Earth Feed 10 Billion People?” The Atlantic, 2018, pp. 1-18.
Widdicombe, Lizzie. “The End of Food.” The New Yorker, 2014, pp. 1–18.
