Food: most of us enjoy eating it, some of us enjoy cooking it, and others enjoy looking at it on Pintrest and only thinking about making it. But no matter the medium in which you enjoy food, we can all agree that the process of food coming from the farm to your plate is a process that is plagued with inefficiency, lack of sanitation, and at times, the downright inhumane treatment of animals, (think Tyson Foods from “Food Inc.”). The solution to this process, at least as Rhinehart sees it, is his breakthrough, artificial food solution fittingly, as well as somewhat disturbingly dubbed, “Soylent.” Rhinehart, along with a growing number of other people, believe Soylent to be the replacement for the food that most of us are so accustomed to eating. But of course, like most revolutionary ideas, Rhinehart’s Soylent has some clear advantages over normal food, but comes with some glaring drawbacks as well. And for me, these drawbacks are simply too much to overcome for me to consider Soylent the “food” of the future.
To start right off with the pros of Soylent, I think the biggest advantage that Soylent has over regular food is that it is much cheaper than regular food, a big positive for most people. As Rhinehart said “his food costs had dropped from four hundred
…show more content…
However, I believe one obvious disadvantage does stand out enough for me at least to say that I would not switch my diet to solely Soylent, and that is the poor marketability of Soylent. Even with how inexpensive and healthy it is, I don’t believe I, or a majority of other people, would be truly willing to give up regular food altogether, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. I couldn’t give up many of the foods I so often enjoy to survive solely on this doughy nutrient
In the United States today, a large part of the average person’s life is food. Each individual consumes nearly one ton of food each year, but never knows what they are truly putting into their body. Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, was one of the earliest works that provided people an insight to the production of their food. The novel was originally written to show the mistreatment of the workers, typically immigrants, but instead resulted in the passing of the Pure Food Act of 1906. The movie, Food Inc. provides today’s people the same insight that The Jungle gave the people in 1906.
We come across varieties of food everyday, but we know very little about where it comes from and their history. Reading Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma opened my eyes to all that goes into producing what I eat. Pollan explores three different modern food chains in his book: the industrial, the organic, and the hunter-gatherer.
Since the dawn of the scientific revolution, historical advances has been made for the pursuit of a finer and a stronger understanding of life. But, not all advancements has benefited our society. Former President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed concerns regarding these developments in his “Farewell Address” speech. As his final speech as president, he leaves his audience with a message that may have shocked some listeners. Not to mention he also gave his thoughts on how we should go about solving our issues as a nation.
The entire book focuses on the fact that we, as individuals, need to be more informed on the process of producing our food as well as the actual ingredients in our food. Not everyone is going to change but approaching this one person at a time can change the world.
So what’s the end-result of the feed-’em-fast-and-cheap factory farmed method? Inferior food with negligible nutrients and more of the unhealthy fats.(Lipman 4) The food that you think is healthy really isn't. Cows are now more fatty than ever making them more appealing to buyers. also since corn cost less to buy than grass its a cheap
The point of prosperity is to not let the world get so horrible that people would want to die in the first place for the “Soylent Green” scenario. So while these doomsday activists see this ghastly vision of the future, they fail to learn the real
The three essays assigned this week had several common threads running through them. The strongest core theme is the rapid change in the food cycle in America and the vast changes that have taken place in the way by which we grow, produce, and process the food that average Americans eat. The food we eat now is drastically different from what our grandparents grew up eating and the three essays each examine that in a different way. Another theme is the loss of knowledge by the average consumer about where their food comes from, what it is composed of, and what, if any, danger it might pose to them. “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele is a harsh look at the realities of food production in a country where large corporations, like Monsanto, have been allowed to exploit laws and loopholes to bend farmers and consumers to their
“Today in the United States, by the simple acts of feeding ourselves, we are unwittingly participating in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings.” Jeremy Seifert certainly knows how to get viewers’ attention, as exemplified by the film blurb describing his 2013 documentary, GMO OMG. The frightening depiction of the food industry is one of many efforts to expose consumers of the twenty-first century to the powerful organizations that profit from national ignorance and lack of critical inquiry and involvement. Seifert effectively harnesses the elements of rhetoric throughout his phenomenal argument against remaining complacent about the food industry’s act of withholding of information about genetically modified organisms from
Michael Pollan’s alternative to Factory farming has given a huge insight into a better ethics on food. In “The Animals: Practicing Complexity” Michael Pollan writes about a polyface farm and how it works. The goal of a polyface farm is to emotionally, economically, and environmentally enhance agriculture. Everything on a polyface farm has the potential to be helpful to something else on the farm. Pollan states “The chicken feed not only feeds the broilers but, transformed into chicken crap, feeds the grass that feeds the cows that, as I was about to see, feeds the pigs and the laying hens” (Pollan 345).
With that being said, most restaurants and grocery stores are declining industrialized foods, giving the name, “food-like substances.” Freedman feels that it is not a realistic way to stop this obesity epidemic by trying to persuade people into completely changing their habits of eating. Instead, Freedman believes that incorporating better ingredients in processed foods will
Instead of growing natural foods, food companies have found an easier, more profitable way of selling food to us: they take these plants and process them into something that tastes better and seems more appealing. And they’re also filled with artificial flavoring, preservatives, and all sorts of synthesized chemicals that make our food sweet but are harmful to us. With these processed foods, we can’t rely on tastes preferences to tell us what to eat, because if we want something sweet, we can eat it any time, which is the exact opposite of why we’ve evolved into liking something sweet. Pollan observes that we’re told to rely on science instead, but this ‘science’ keeps on changing. It seems like the only effect of this ‘science’ is that it helps the food companies make more money.
GMOS Introduction: I believe that GMOS are good for this world and for the people because the gmos can save us from starving when all the food is gone. GMOS are a genetically modified organism is an organism whose genetic materials that have been altered using genetic engineering techniques. GMO foods are okay to eat because some food that have gmos could have some genetic characteristics in them to make the food survive the hot when that food has to be frozen. GMOS are different from foods that don 't have GMOS Body 1: GMOS can save the world because if we had no food because if there was a drought and the plants died. Then we could just plant GMO foods, The drought won’t really do anything to the plant.
“I asked myself a question: "Knowing what I know, why am I not a vegetarian?"’ Graham Hill, an inspiring speaker, introduced a new way to eat. During his speech on TED Talk, he explains to his audience how eating meat has affected the world. In a calm and humorous tone, Hill proposes his purpose. He explains to his audience by becoming a “weekday veg” you will live a better live, it’s great compromise that will help people, animals, and the environment.
World hunger is acknowledged by top researchers to news-watchers to be a serious and heart-breaking complication today. It is estimated that a staggering 925 million humans around the world are suffering from the effects of hunger, with 870 million affected by malnutrition. Those 925 million actually outnumber the combined people living in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. That means that there are enough hungry people on this planet to fill up almost two entire continents. On the idea of a vegan world, many disparagers reply “Humans cannot give up animal products, because everyone would starve!”
Herbivores do not only take the form of animals, but humans as well. Veganism, “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” (The Vegan Society). When people think about a vegan lifestyle, the first question, assumption or judgment is based off their diet. The food choices of a vegan have risen, deep concern, and question regarding whether or not this lifestyle is healthy or not.