Skip to main content

Pollan's book Cooked (2013) is quite interesting but has too much information to write about or narrow down. What are the basic ideas and the...

In Michael Pollan's Cooked, the author, motivated by a desire to cook healthier food for his family and reduce their reliance on large corporations, uncovers the physical processes that create food. His central idea is that cooking is a "defining human activity" (page 5). By this, he means that cooking is at the center of the development of our civilization. It not only keeps our bodies healthy and active, it also creates communities and is an important shared activity. In fact, he says that "cooking... is one of the most interesting and worthwhile things we humans do" (page 11). His questions are motivated by the desire to have "a deeper understanding of the natural world and our species' peculiar role in it" (page 2). 


As the author regards cooking as so vital to our lives, he is perplexed by what he calls the Cooking Paradox--the fact that we spend more time watching food being prepared on television than actually preparing it. People are riveted by cooking shows, yet they tend to rely on prepared foods that involve very little actual cooking. To restore our idea of what cooking is and its importance, the author devotes his book to the study of four vital physical processes that create food: cooking with fire, cooking with water (braising); baking bread (using air); and the creation of fermented food (using the earth). He believes that if we can understand and master the physical processes of cooking, we will return to this fundamental activity rather than simply watching it on television. As a result, we will be healthier and more connected to other people.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more