The future of food (and drink)?

[Mock Turtle]

In a far distant future, because of the sustainable nature and for our own health, AI has taken control of what humans eat, with most or all of such being synthetic foods. All humans have implanted within them from an early age the means to have their health and all other such things checked wherever they go. People are only allowed to eat certain foods, often the tastiest and naughtiest, if they are healthy enough, and any food supply system (controlled of course) can recognise this by a quick scan. Obesity has thus been eliminated but at some cost. The benefits, apart from being healthier, would also see us being better monitored so as to pick up any illness and disease early enough so as to deal with such, so not all about weight issues.

Perhaps rather fanciful but if such a scenario was possible in the future would it be worth the cost - some rather obvious loss of freedoms?

 

[Blisters]

Personally I don't think it would be. I value free will and strongly belive that if ones actions harm no one (perhaps with the exception of themselves), one shouldn't be punished for/forbidden from them.
That being said, obviously more could be done in society to address the obesity epidemic. I just don't think such a great level of surveillance is the right way to go, especially not before other means are exhausted.

 

[exchemist]

In a far distant future, because of the sustainable nature and for our own health, AI has taken control of what humans eat, with most or all of such being synthetic foods. All humans have implanted within them from an early age the means to have their health and all other such things checked wherever they go. People are only allowed to eat certain foods, often the tastiest and naughtiest, if they are healthy enough, and any food supply system (controlled of course) can recognise this by a quick scan. Obesity has thus been eliminated but at some cost. The benefits, apart from being healthier, would also see us being better monitored so as to pick up any illness and disease early enough so as to deal with such, so not all about weight issues.

Perhaps rather fanciful but if such a scenario was possible in the future would it be worth the cost - some rather obvious loss of freedoms?

You mix two quite different propositions here, and there is no need for them to go together.

One is in-built health monitoring. I can see no negative effects of this, so long as being fitted with it was voluntary.

The other is dietary coercion. This would be totally unacceptable in a free society, as well as highly inequitable, given that people's physiological tolerance of diets varies enormously.

In point of fact, it is highly likely that the health monitoring would lead to an improvement in many people's diet, simply through the reminders it would provide and then real-time information on the effect of dietary changes.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In a far distant future, because of the sustainable nature and for our own health, AI has taken control of what humans eat, with most or all of such being synthetic foods. All humans have implanted within them from an early age the means to have their health and all other such things checked wherever they go. People are only allowed to eat certain foods, often the tastiest and naughtiest, if they are healthy enough, and any food supply system (controlled of course) can recognise this by a quick scan. Obesity has thus been eliminated but at some cost. The benefits, apart from being healthier, would also see us being better monitored so as to pick up any illness and disease early enough so as to deal with such, so not all about weight issues.

Perhaps rather fanciful but if such a scenario was possible in the future would it be worth the cost - some rather obvious loss of freedoms?

Democrats already like telling and mandating what people should and should not eat and drink, what's stopping them from taking it a step further?

 

[Spirit of Light]

In a far distant future, because of the sustainable nature and for our own health, AI has taken control of what humans eat, with most or all of such being synthetic foods. All humans have implanted within them from an early age the means to have their health and all other such things checked wherever they go. People are only allowed to eat certain foods, often the tastiest and naughtiest, if they are healthy enough, and any food supply system (controlled of course) can recognise this by a quick scan. Obesity has thus been eliminated but at some cost. The benefits, apart from being healthier, would also see us being better monitored so as to pick up any illness and disease early enough so as to deal with such, so not all about weight issues.

Perhaps rather fanciful but if such a scenario was possible in the future would it be worth the cost - some rather obvious loss of freedoms?

I would not let others dictate what i eat

 

[Mock Turtle]

You mix two quite different propositions here, and there is no need for them to go together.

One is in-built health monitoring. I can see no negative effects of this, so long as being fitted with it was voluntary.

The other is dietary coercion. This would be totally unacceptable in a free society, as well as highly inequitable, given that people's physiological tolerance of diets varies enormously.

In point of fact, it is highly likely that the health monitoring would lead to an improvement in many people's diet, simply through the reminders it would provide and then real-time information on the effect of dietary changes.

Well, all the better to give scope to any discussion. I also failed to mention the exercise factor - the cars seemingly running out of petrol/electricity a mile from one's destination (walkies time), the robots constantly informing us that we haven't done the requisite amount of mileage, and the CCTV, prevalent everywhere, that now informs all around who are the guilty ones.

But yes, I have to agree that monitoring might not come with all these added extras. Not sure what might decrease our trend towards obesity though - even such monitoring.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Personally I don't think it would be. I value free will and strongly belive that if ones actions harm no one (perhaps with the exception of themselves), one shouldn't be punished for/forbidden from them.
That being said, obviously more could be done in society to address the obesity epidemic. I just don't think such a great level of surveillance is the right way to go, especially not before other means are exhausted.

I'm a great believer in freedom too, but one can't ignore the burden so many place on others (perhaps seen as harm), when they tend to take up resources disproportionately - as to poor health or whatever else.

 

[Stevicus]

In a far distant future, because of the sustainable nature and for our own health, AI has taken control of what humans eat, with most or all of such being synthetic foods. All humans have implanted within them from an early age the means to have their health and all other such things checked wherever they go. People are only allowed to eat certain foods, often the tastiest and naughtiest, if they are healthy enough, and any food supply system (controlled of course) can recognise this by a quick scan. Obesity has thus been eliminated but at some cost. The benefits, apart from being healthier, would also see us being better monitored so as to pick up any illness and disease early enough so as to deal with such, so not all about weight issues.

Perhaps rather fanciful but if such a scenario was possible in the future would it be worth the cost - some rather obvious loss of freedoms?

It would be better if they could just make the healthy foods taste like the unhealthy foods. That's the thing that the health food crowd could never really understand: Health food tastes terrible. Unhealthy food tastes much better, yet I've seen people eating things like a bowl of grass and wheat germ and then saying "Mmmmm, this is delicious!"

Sometimes, I might want a little snack, and the options might be Twinkies or carrots and celery. If they could make carrots and celery look and taste just like Twinkies, more people would probably eat healthy.

 

[PureX]

Democrats already like telling and mandating what people should and should not eat and drink, what's stopping them from taking it a step further?

And republicans believe that if you can make poison palatable and sell it for a nice profit, that's just good business. Too bad some sort of compromise can't be determined. But republicans don't believe in compromise, either.

 

[exchemist]

Well, all the better to give scope to any discussion. I also failed to mention the exercise factor - the cars seemingly running out of petrol a mile from one's destination (walkies time), the robots constantly informing us that we haven't done the requisite amount of mileage, and the CCTV, prevalent everywhere, that now informs all around who are the guilty ones.

But yes, I have to agree that monitoring might not come with all these added extras. Not sure what might decrease our trend towards obesity though - even such monitoring.

Obesity can be tackled by reducing poverty, by education and by control of the sale of certain types of food and drink.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And republicans believe that if you can make poison palatable and sell it for a nice profit, that's just good business. Too bad some sort of compromise can't be determined. But republicans don't believe in compromise, either.

Makes you wonder how people survived in the 40s and 50s before the food police showed up.

 

[Stevicus]

Makes you wonder how people survived in the 40s and 50s before the food police showed up.

What strikes me about these kinds of debates about food is that, since you mention the 1940s when WW2 happened and there were acute worldwide food shortages and famines which killed millions (often overlooked due to the horrific death toll of that conflict). When I visited Leningrad, I talked to people who survived the siege of that city, and their daily food ration might be a small cracker made from sawdust - anything to put into their stomachs.

That seems to be the case throughout most of human history, as there's been a constant struggle to get enough food to survive - and much of the time, people have been underfed, malnourished - if not outright starving to death. There are still large sections of the world where this continues to be an ongoing problem.

So, what we're seeing today with the crisis of junk food and obesity, it seems somewhat unique to the modern times we're living in. Most people in most eras throughout history did not have this luxury.

I think the biggest concern humanity will have in the future is whether we will be able to produce enough food for the population. If history is anything to go by, if people are hungry enough, they'll eat anything - even each other. They won't care much about its content or where Soylent Green actually comes from - just as long as they can eat.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It would be better if they could just make the healthy foods taste like the unhealthy foods. That's the thing that the health food crowd could never really understand: Health food tastes terrible. Unhealthy food tastes much better, yet I've seen people eating things like a bowl of grass and wheat germ and then saying "Mmmmm, this is delicious!"

Sometimes, I might want a little snack, and the options might be Twinkies or carrots and celery. If they could make carrots and celery look and taste just like Twinkies, more people would probably eat healthy.

Tend to agree here, but perhaps one gets into the habit either way. And apart from the current factory farming we have (which is bad enough) I'd hate to see this becoming the norm:

Countryfile viewers ‘horrified’ by Matt Baker's dairy farm segment ‘I’m appalled!’

 

[Stevicus]

Tend to agree here, but perhaps one gets into the habit either way. And apart from the current factory farming we have (which is bad enough) I'd hate to see this becoming the norm:

Countryfile viewers ‘horrified’ by Matt Baker's dairy farm segment ‘I’m appalled!’

Yes, this does seem pretty strange. I've never heard of keeping cows inside all the time and not allowing them to graze.

On the other hand, life as a farm animal seems like a pretty bleak existence no matter how you look at it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, this does seem pretty strange. I've never heard of keeping cows inside all the time and not allowing them to graze.

On the other hand, life as a farm animal seems like a pretty bleak existence no matter how you look at it.

That depends on the farm I think.

Range animals actually have a very good life being mostly protected from predators and ample food and grazing grounds until that fateful day comes when they are ready to be eaten.

 

[PureX]

Makes you wonder how people survived in the 40s and 50s before the food police showed up.

A lot of them didn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, this does seem pretty strange. I've never heard of keeping cows inside all the time and not allowing them to graze.

On the other hand, life as a farm animal seems like a pretty bleak existence no matter how you look at it.

If you look at it from a standpoint of numbers and range extension, being liked by people is a good survival strategy for a species.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Makes you wonder how people survived in the 40s and 50s before the food police showed up.

Controlling the sale of a food does not necessarily mean prohibiting it or penalizing people for indulging in it. Educating people on the facts about that food is a management tool also.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Controlling the sale of a food does not necessarily mean prohibiting it or penalizing people for indulging in it. Educating people on the facts about that food is a management tool also.

I'm all for education. But food and drink have already been prohibited from being served by restaurants and other food establishments.

That's why things don't taste good anymore.