View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Food Trend

Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.
I donít espouse conspiracy theories, but something along those lines is the best explanation that I can find for the trend in recent decades away from high quality foods and toward foods that are minimally nutritious and sometimes toxic. When I was younger, beans were eaten seldom and always properly cooked, but in the last few decades there has been a trend toward eating more beans that are poorly cooked beans and various bean derivatives, even though it is well known that beans contain toxins at high levels. Toxins that can be decreased or eliminated by cooking at high temperatures.
Old-fashioned Baked Beans were cooked overnight at or near boiling, and that was adequate for destroying most of the toxins. These days many people think the simmering beans for an hour is adequate, and some simply put them in a crock-pot at a temperature of about 120 for a few hours, and they think they have adequately cooked the beans. Cooking beans at low temperatures actually creates additional toxins. At least as bad as poorly cooked beans are bean derivatives, such as tofu; that stuff just concentrates the toxins.

Many recipes mention boiling beans for only ten minutes. That is much too little time. Beans should be boiled for an hour or longer, and that includes both presoaked dry beans and green beans. Some people think that removing the surface polysaccharides is the same as removing the toxins, but the surface polysaccharides just produce gas, if they arenít removed. The lectins in beans can make people very sick or potentially even kill them.

But this post isnít about beans as much as it is about getting people accustomed to low quality foods, so there will be something for everyone but not much. To deal with the over-population that they expect, they are trying to train people to eat less food and more fillers. Gluten-free things are ideal for fillers, because they can be made from sawdust that otherwise would go to waste. The the push toward meat substitutes also works for them, because they think that there won't be enough animals for all of us to eat. But they are the same people who think that there will be many animals becoming extinct, but they don't realize that humans may have a near miss. The assumptions appear to include ecological disaster, climate disaster, many species becoming extinct, and so on. I can't say whether many species will become extinct in the next hundred million years, but it is possible, but it may be partly a matter of definition. There are animals that are called different species, because of appearance that are completely inter-fertile, so by the old definition of species, they are of the same species. An excellent example is the canids, dogs, wolves, etc. If the old definition of species were used, then several species would cease to exist.

But animals often have 'boom and bust' cycles, in which populations expand to fill the available range, but when the range is full, the population will plummet due to over-crowding and the easy spread of disease. Humans appear to be at the edge of a bust cycle; although that isn't true in all places, but humans have filled some areas to beyond the level that that part of the eco-system can support. One place that comes to mind is Yemen. For a long time Yemen was a relatively pleasant place to live, and it was happier and wealthier than most of the Arabian Peninsula; it was Arabia Felix (Happy Arabia) to the Romans, but the population has exceeded the region's resources, so the residents have been trying to kill of other residents for a few decades. The same effect has been seen in other places, especially places where food resources are failing to meet demand.

There are people who are trying to forestall to great die-off, but they are flogging a dead horse. The seeds to major population reduction have been sown, and it is just a matter of time before they will develop. Remember the ďGreen RevolutionĒ in the 1960's, when new, more productive varieties of various grains and vegetables, were introduced, well they have depleted the soil, water, and harvests have dropped. But before the soil was depleted, the additional food led to population booms.

If people learn to eat non-nutritious foods, then it is thought that more people may survive as population continues. These are the same people who will distribute Soylent Green and similar products.

If their projections are correct, then the world's population may hit twenty billion or maybe even thirty billion. I am an optimist, so I think that natural processes will prevail, and there will be wars and diseases that will reduce the population down to a sustainable level, maybe one to three billion. If people will be forced to eat non-nutritious things, then that may trigger the population reduction, but disease is the more common way for animal populations to crash. And, if diseases won't be enough, then natural disasters may have done the job in prehistoric times, but disease is generally reliable when animals have excessive population.

If only the opinion makers were clued in to the facts, then we wouldn't be running into sawdust and beans presented as food. If there's going to be a great die-off, then I want to go into it adequately fed.

Earlier post

Updated 07-13-2020 at 07:33 AM by PeterL