[Soylent has the potential to change the cultural significance of food.]
In the last few years, as my desire to participate in hobbies and the need to do academic work has increased, I have often bemoaned the need for food and three meals a day. It seems entirely inefficient, both economically and practically. You’d think, then, that the prospect of Soylent, an “over-all food substitute” that is cheap, easy to make, and is consumed with the efficiency of a protein shake would greatly appeal to my perspective. However, after working through the favorite meal narrative essay, it became clear to me that food isn’t just for sustenance. It’s also for relaxing and connecting. Meals are a chance to have a break in the day, usually one spent with others. Going through these seemingly conflicting ideas, it’s not easy to tell which one is better, but there’s no doubt in my mind that if Soylent became popular and was utilized in everyday life, it would have the potential to change the cultural significance of food itself.
[What are the pros and cons of Soylent? What would we gain from Soylent that we lose from a traditional meal and vice versa? Who would benefit most from Soylent? How would they benefit?]
One of the first things to consider when faced with Soylent as a concept is to figure out how it benefits the public and what it takes away from food culture. Since Soylent provides a replacement to our meals, it leaves the average consumer to mindlessly sip their meals away as they do more important things. Widdecombe brings our attention to this in her article, “‘It fills you up for five hours,” Alex, a computer-science major, said. ‘It’s good for studying” (15). Beyond merely subsisting on a regular sedentary basis, there are also DIY recipes that have been made by the Soylent community to account for many different lifestyles. Made correctly, Soylent gives the consumer the nutrients they need in order to stay healthy.
While these are some huge benefits, especially to people like busy college students, workaholics, or simply people who have to meet a looming deadline, the Soylent diet isn’t necessarily helpful to those who live a more lax lifestyle. In fact, it could directly affect the connection that preparing and eating food gives. Even when you are only making something for yourself, the meal could have significance in its history. This is something I draw attention to in my favorite meal narrative. “Looking past the nostalgia, however, it is clear that the reason the beef stew is an important meal that I cherish is also because it represents humans as a whole… Eating this meal, especially with family, makes me feel connected to humanity in a way that sends a person back in time.” The importance of this bond is invaluable, as it keeps us in touch with our roots; our heritage and ancestors that made these meals with their own loved ones.
[If we use Soylent more often, and thus real food less, would real food be thought of as something for special occasions and their cultural significance then increased?]
So far, I’ve mostly talked about the negative effects that Soylent could have on food culture, but who’s to say there can’t be upsides as well. The concept of Soylent isn’t inherently bad. As Widdecombe says in a quote from Rhinehart, “[Rhinehart] imagines that, in the future, ‘we’ll see a separation between our meals for utility and function, and our meals for experience and socialization’” (3). This is a great idea that could benefit both aspects of everyday life. While a creator’s vision for a product is not always what it turns out to be, especially in the hands of public citizens, if Soylent works as planned, by taking over meals meant only for sustenance, there is the possibility that real food could become even more special. In a way, the cultural significance of coming together specifically for food could be increased when we have it less often. This is exemplified in my own mother’s experience, “I learned that as she grew up, cooking wasn’t any kind of tradition or activity. However, this changed later. “[I]t was really when I met your dad. He showed me… some of the basic things, and then, I just started doing it and liking to do it. So, then I would start experimenting and trying to make different dishes…” Through the connection she had with my dad through food, the love she had for both increased over the years. While it may not be causation, it certainly correlated enough to put my mom in a position where she would make meals for sustenance and to spend time with her loved ones.” Since my mom hadn’t had experience with cooking as a kid, her memories instead centered around my dad and the family they grew together. While I don’t believe these memories are any more or less special than ones she could have made growing up, it is clear to see, nowadays, that the connection food and cooking had to our immediate family has brought my parents closer together, and even began to mend the cracks seen in her side of the family after her childhood.
[Is this paragraph too long?/find a way to shorten it or separate into two different paragraphs without taking away any of the meaning]
More questions:
[How would meals themselves change? Would recipes, even generational ones, lose significance?]
[Would having our basic needs taken care of give us more time for the other things we want/have to do? Is that a good thing when weighed against the significance of meals in general?]
