Recently watched Man vs. Food Boise-edition. It had been awhile – actually watched a few
episodes when it came out drawn mostly by host Adam Richman’s shtick: engaging,
funny. But got sick of it, just as Adam occasionally
does by consuming prodigious amounts of rich food. This last time (the Boise episode but may as
well be any episode for what it matters) I was amazed by the casual attitude
the people in the show had towards over-eating.
Richman exploits this, being instantly buddy-buddy with any restaurant-goer
simply by overtly condoning their behavior.
He’s not the only one, there being many shows like this. Plus any all-you-can-eat commercial implicitly
or explicitly pats over-eaters on their expansive backs as well. Really any commercial for whatever hamburger
that approaches 1000 calories is condoning gluttony
It
was this word – gluttony – that I was put in mind of. A Christian idea. Also in many situations in the past, in the Christian
epoch, food intake was characterized by (relative, for sure) scarcity. So take the term gluttony with simply a
single grain of salt – I’m not motivated by Christian concern. It is just gross. What does it say about a people that they
take part in a behavior that is so unnecessary and then revel in it?
I wanted
to write about how a world formerly dominated by concern for the seven deadly
sins (at least since the fourth century from what Wikipedia tells me) has made
a shift to the gluttonous world of today.
However, I want to say that if a country in the past reached our level
of affluence they, per capita, would have been as chubby as we, regardless of
religious proscriptions. Is that
right? This makes it seem like delving
into food history is necessary which suddenly is as unappetizing as watching
someone cram mounds of starch and fat into their mouth.
Our
relation to food does say things about Americans. It doesn’t matter if it signals a dislocation
from past mores. A people with such
abundance at their disposal. We have
developed a sick relationship with food and the attitude is that we are
expressing ourselves. Fair enough. The libertarian creed of one person’s freedom
ending where his fist meets the nose of another is not particularly compromised
by others’ over-consumption. That is how
they want to spend their money. But, what
if – considering the big picture – people’s food consumption had some relation
to environmental degradation that affected us all? If it does then the libertarian creed ethic
might be violated. I’ve hears such a
link being argued successfully. Won’t
say anymore here. How about: would a
violation of one’s aesthetic sense be the same as being punched in the nose –
insofar as libertarian ethics is concerned?
No. Will have to continue
suffering such shows and the ubiquitous commercials.
