The American Century

From "Fashionable Food: Seven Decades of Food Fads":

American housewives took to the mechanical refrigerator as fast as their finances would allow. By 1937 more than two million American households had new refrigerators, and by the mid-1950's over 80 percent of the population did. (In contrast, only 8 perfect of English households had refrigerators by 1956.)

I'm trying, and failing, to imagine my life if I had to shop for food every day, or keep charge of a tiny, moldy, inconsistent icebox. I doubt it would include much writing, for starters. Little things like this constantly remind me just how rich we are compared to even the very recent past.

Comments

Never has the downside of technology been so cogently illustrated.

Posted by William Dean Howells | September 29, 2007 11:04 AM

Megan

I know what you mean. Imagine the times were our “daily work” was actually to find food. These days, if you are a successful corporate lawyer in NY on 90 hour weeks, you don’t even need a refrigerator – you are at your desk in a rectangular box (or the metro) most of your life and get food delivery to the office. Or you are a factory worker and pass by Jack in a Box on your way home. The times of refrigerators and cooking and gardening are all gone – only the rich can afford them?

At one point in time only the rich could afford candles. Then only the rich could afford electric lightning and the poor used candles. These days the rich buy expensive candles and the poor use electric lightning?

At one point in time only the rich could afford to be fat. These days the poor are fat and only the rich can afford to be thin?

Remember the time when we had no cars and escalators to move us to the technologically advanced fitness machines at our gyms, treadmills and steppers? We had to run to the gym? Or there was no gym but rather we exercised while gathering food?

The old times offered too much multi-taking. Eg working and exercising at the same time.. thanks to our advanced civilization and specialization we managed to separate those parallel processes into linearism. Now we separately eat, work, exercise, socialize, …

I sincerely hope for the mental health of us all (let alone the ecological) – that we will all soon become as rich as the rich. So that we can work with our hands in the garden again, so that we can eat healthy and fresh (daily) foods again and exercise naturally and surround ourselves with nature. So that we can enjoy cooking as much as eating. Foods taste better when you feel a connection between nature, produce, cooking and food ala Pavlov?). Maybe one day we can all dine in expensive raw food restaurants as can be found in NY and LA (with daily produce from framer’s markets etc).

Until that day – advanced technologies like Prozac will be on the rise as will modern gyms and dieting books?

How come that our best technological contributors (eg Leonardo Da Vinci or Albert Einstein) are often the most critical of so called "progress"?

Do you know this quote by Goethe?:

"If apes would know the feeling
of boredom - they would be human."

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 29, 2007 11:08 AM

the quote above should read:

"if apes knew the feeling of
boredom.."

(I am dyslexic but know some grammar when I have time..)

and since I am at it again (and this is a fascinating topic beyond Thoreau & Co) - more afterthoughts.

Just like we have to follow natural laws of gravity and aerodynamics in order to mimic birds and build an airplane – we have to consider our evolutionary heritage to determine what makes us happy and fulfilled. Separating ourselves too much from natural cycles does not seem to be in our own best interest. I am not saying that the refrigerator was a step in the wrong direction (it always depends on what we do with it). But I am more exited about the telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, mobile phone, internet thingies as they bring us closer together (towards the 24/7 community of the ape past) and hence closer to our evolutionary heritage than say the refrigerator?

Imagine a world where fathers and mothers can see their children grow up and not merely 1 hour per day? (not sure if many would perceive this as a good thing but..)

Another example - my partner and I used to do major weekly shopping of some of the stable foods we consume. As we do not eat animal products we do not need the refrigerator much. Pasta, rice, beans, legumes can be stored for ages. Soy milk does not need to be cooled to be stored either, neither does Tofu or other vegetable meats. (btw animal mother’s milk is the only food that has to go through major pasteurizations due to its very high bacterial content and it still rots faster than anything else if not cooled properly?) We keep fresh herb pots at home and only used buy the produce daily. Our fridge is hence a big white wine cooler (the French would not be impressed)?

We have recently switched to daily shopping only of what we want to consume on that day. The shoe-leather costs and time invested remained the same after some short adjustments. But it somehow gave us a deeper connection to food.

this cannot work, of course, when you have developed a habit of being in a rush after work to do shopping (as I had developed in the past after only 2 years at my first job as a “professional”). Then one cannot enjoy the meditation in front of the produce stand but rather finds it annoying, pointless, time wasting.. then cooking becomes not purpose and fulfillment but a slow-down on your road to numbness after food, drinks and TV! Don't get me wrong - I too often enjoy "eating" more than cooking, I too enjoy the numbing pleasures..

but sometimes, especially when we are aiming for some holistic happiness (whatever the individual balance) - there are no shortcuts. Or if there are - they leave you short of something?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 29, 2007 12:00 PM

Whenever I start to feel like life would be simpler and idyllic if we lived on a farm, I call my mother. She grew up on a farm in the 30s and 40s, and has NO deep fondness for "being one with the land". She remembers brutally hard days in the hot sun, her entire family working dawn to dusk at menial mind-numbing tasks, and watching her mother and father being broken down by decades of daily labor, with no days off. Don't forget the enforced frugality due to lack of a pension fund, being at the mercy of the elements and natural disasters like insects and diseases (so you add in gut-churning worrying - I once commented that farmers don't get stressed, she nearly blew coffee our her nose), and you have to sell your crops in the marketplace, so you're also at the mercy of the business world.
She told me that she'd rather be night manager at a McDonalds that go into farming.
Just sayin.
She was also a huge believer in technology, having lived without it. The story she told that had the greatest effect on me was of kids being missing every year in September when school started, because they were dead. Some in farm accidents (not uncommon), but most due to polio, typhis, typhoid, scarlet fever, pneumonia, infection, measles, you name it.
So before you get all misty about the wonderful Bygone Days of Yore, you might want to talk to someone who lived in them. They may have a different perspective.

Oh, and don't forget: you can live that life anytime you want. Subsistence farming is easy and cheap. Not fun, of course, but there it is.

Posted by rhinoman | September 29, 2007 12:14 PM

rhinoman

There is a great section in the book by Jared Diamond ("Guns, Germs, Steel" I think) that describes how our health had deteriorated when we initially started agricultural practices - away from the hunter & gatherer tribes? We were not very good at it and maybe still suffer the consequences.

What nature did for free - we took on as our "job". Zeus punished us with inventiveness and "hope" when we stole his fire. Bear in mind that this was his "punishment" because now we had to "work" all day..

We have to plow the fields, seed the seeds, use fertilizers and pesticides (all of which nature used to do for us).. if you are into livestock agriculture as it has been practiced this century - you are lost anyway. that is a very sad existence.. I agree.

Modern, or better, current agriculture is nowhere as aligned with natural laws as say an airplane and the laws of aerodynamics? It is also not natural compared to perma-culture or natural farming?

Even organic farmers (who still practice unnatural agriculture compared to perma-culture and natural farming) speak differently, more positive, of their jobs than other farmers?

I do not know enough about your mother, rhinoman. but it seems to me that she too was out of balance regarding some evolutionary needs? so where and are lawyers, coal miners, etc. we are on an everlasting quest for balance and happiness?

I believe that a renaissance of Epicurian hedonism (bread tastes better when you are somewhat hungry and not stuffed. bigger is not better, being very good in one things is not better than being good at many) combined with the ancient idea of consilience would do us all some good?

Please do not try to misinterpret what I am trying to say here... i don't want to take away your technologies from you (or your mother). I am in the business of technology myself and enjoy it. unnatural separation from evolutionary needs (on an individual basis) and laws of sustainability (on group basis) is what i am addressing?

We all know how much better our lives are today than they have been before. We are more secure from violence than ever before, have better medicine, longer lifespans, more stability and opportunities, etc... I appreciate this a lot - especially as things did not look so rosy when I was younger.

What I am addressing is Solon vs Croesus

It should be clear who I root for?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 29, 2007 12:53 PM

On a tangent, would this explain why the Brits prefer their beer warm?

(also, my wife, who was born and raised in Lincolnshire, claims that her parents consider ice cubes in their Pepsi to be incredibly ostentatious. Of course, they might just be oddballs)

Posted by jonathan | September 29, 2007 1:26 PM

Hugo Pottisch:
I like your idealism, but I think you are out of touch with the way evolution works in the natural world. It's a brutal, nasty process. Nothing ever dies of old age in nature, animals kill each other all the time, and starvation is quite common - it's how natural populations regulate themselves. People usually want the good part of it, sort of a "garden of Eden" mentality, but they forget about the bad parts. The only real "evolutionary need" that any animal has is to survive, by bloody tooth and claw if necessary.
Just read Jane Goodall about the behavior of chimpanzees. They're a nasty bunch.

Posted by rhinoman | September 29, 2007 1:56 PM

rhinoman

you did misinterpret me and have come up with issues that I have not even touched. you make many implications about my believes that you cannot possibly know anything about? Indulging in YOUR discussion would be a distraction from my arguments. nevertheless - I am curious about where you are going with this, so, here some thoughts on your completely new and unrelated points:

I am not religious and do not believe in the Garden of Eden. But I know what Zeus meant!

to call nature a brutal nasty process is an argument of religion or some misunderstood value judgment.

if there were no suffering there would be no enjoyment. no death no life.

it is religion that wants to tell us that to live for ever without suffering and in constant bliss is preferable, etc? (Sounds a lot like opium to me - the only thing where I agree with Marx?)

death and suffering are all natural but do usually not last long (unless you are 1 of the 50 billion animals who never see daylight, can never turn around and sleep in their own piss and shit all their lives). It is hard to define what a natural death is.. do you prefer a long Alzheimer death to a long cancer death?

Would you rather starve over weeks as aging carnivores do or would you rather be killed within seconds, minutes or hours as many prey animals are? Who is on top of the death-chain? Mostly herbivores (have the best deaths)?

Would you rather live to be 70 as an obese person or would you rather have a full life of adventure for 30 years?

Why would I read Jane Goodall to discover that chimps are violent? I have met her in person and I have read her books and I know that (also had Human History lessons in school and occasionally read the news, etc). are you saying that there is nothing we can do about our violent nature (I have never mentioned violence in my posts - why do you btw?).. why read the book then.. if you are saying that we can make a difference based on our choices - what is your disagreement with my arguments then other that there is no garden eden (which i never claimed anyway)?

BTW - Jane Goodall is NOT an expert on human and ape violence.. These guys are - Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham. Their book Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence is breathtaking (based on the longest research in the wild by Harvard). It is clear that all animal compete and cooperate with each other. Most social species compete and cooperate the most within their own. Chimps kill up to 30% of each other per year and are probably the most violent animal on the planet. Gorillas, Orangutans, Humans and Bonoboos (our closest relatives) are not as violent but violence among them depends on culture and therefore varies from tribe to tribe. It is wonderful to see that many apes can go on living long and fulfilled lives without killing as single animal (not one another and not other species). I would choose to be a bonoboo any time of day compared to a chimp (or even human)?

Explain to me - don't you think that we experience a better life now that women are liberated and can make their own living as all say female bonoboos have done since millions of years. Can you not envision even more potential for improvement - of course always inline with what natural laws allow (we will never get rid of suffering and death etc)? if you can - what for example?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 29, 2007 3:37 PM

PS: you want to witness somebody who really does not understand nature at all? Please read The Atlantic's new article on climate change: The Bright Side of Climate Change... If E O Wilson is Greenspan - then Mr Lomborg and Gregg Easterbrook are Ms Klein?? Easterbrook is a smart fellow and I agree with so much of what he writes. That R&D funding sucks, that the media reporting has often not been helpful to the cause, that cap and trade would be good, that we should be optimistic and that it might not cost much and also have good opportunities etc. that we should make greener alternatives cheaper through more transparency. In fact - I LOVE ALL THAT!!!

But then he suddenly turns into an uneducated child when it comes to non-economic and non-political issues such as the ecology. Like Mr Lomborg he approaches nature like an engineer at best. "You know what - if it gets warmer in Siberia - we could all move there or at least move agriculture there, etc." Help - is there not an editor who knows 10% of 1% of 101 ecology? We have not had as much species extinction and soil erosion as we have since only 100 years in 60 million years... what does that alone tell us? You cannot move the rainforest to Siberia only because it gets warmer there. This is non-linear biology. This is not like: if it gets too expensive to manufacture in the US we can move to China..

I feel absolutely fine with adding this rant here albeit it is not related to the topic at hand (if the majority does it - democracy dictates that it is "good").. but maybe I should write to the editors directly? They might as well ask Ms Klein to write about the advantages of capitalism? but I understand - journalism is politics. you write what people want to read and not the only way around.

PSII: sorry for taking this thread over and posting so much. I only get this with certain topics.. nature is one!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 29, 2007 3:49 PM

Hugo,
Wow. I do think we're having a different discussion, and yours is (I think) quite a bit more elevated than mine. Actually, I can't quite figure out what point(s) you are making. You seem to be referencing some much longer work of thought, can you tell me what that is?

Posted by rhinoman | September 29, 2007 7:32 PM

Uh, Megan,

Ever hear of ice boxes?

Colonists stored ice in the winter for use in the summer.

Refrigerators ended the ice business.

Remember the ice, coal, and oil businesses? Probably too young. I was fortunate to grow up during their last gasp. I actually saw the ice man. I handled ice tongs. I remember banking our coal furnace for the night and going to the basement in the morning and piling on the coal. It was great when we finally got a coal auger.

Gone are the days.

Posted by M. Simon | September 29, 2007 8:33 PM

This is non-linear biology.

Are you saying that other types of biology can be treated as vector spaces? Or are you using technical mathematical terms without understanding them?

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | September 29, 2007 9:12 PM

I would like to apologize to Mr Easterbrook and also The Atlantic for my unnecessarily harsh and exaggerated words. I feel a deep philia with nature and do not mean to attack – if anything preserve.

I also feel as if it would be good to stress that I have not argued for going back into the cave or jungle. There is no reason why we could not continue with our intellectual capital industries and become more connected with nature. What is the alternative in terms of ecological self-preservation but also in terms of living happy and fulfilled lives (whatever that might look like)?

Joseph Hertzlinger

I meant to say that compared to the issues that engineers deal with – biology is rather non-linear. One argument that Mr Lomborg and Mr Easterbrook propose is that it seems like a generally warmer world could be better in certain areas.

There is no need to sound like I potentially do myself - what’s the term, narcissistic, self-righteous alarmist? One can inform the reader otherwise? Mr Easterbrook’s article will, I fear, not be remembered for its well argued economic and political analysis (which is far above average) but for the feeling that we can adopt in case we cannot mitigate enough.. that is not how I would like to approach the problem (it is a given that one has to adopt to any situation)?

Climate change is unfortunately not the only environmental problem that we face - just the currently most publicized (or is the new term popularized?). Species extinction has a longer time horizon but is even more dangerous. Persisting growth in land erosion and water shortages could confront us earlier. We have therefore no way of knowing and hoping that Siberia will be habitable in case it gets warmer? In this context – talking about the sorts of positive adaptation scenarios as practiced by Mr Lomborg and Mr Easterbrook (move to a warmer Siberia) - without appropriately mentioning the risks, is.. not helpful?

There are other ways to be optimistic and fortunately Mr Easterbrook expresses those as well (as does Mr Lomborg. I like his support of solar, for example). I am optimistic about the entrepreneurial spirit and that we can prevent the worst and reasonable costs (given the many business opportunities). Green energy sources and sustainable agriculture for example would not only aid the ecology but also geopolitical stability.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 30, 2007 1:39 AM

Why would global warming be any kind of a crisis? After all, in a discussion of nuclear energy didn't you say that solar energy was sufficient and a good enough deal to be adopted on a large enough scale before there would a crisis?

On the other hand, if you didn't mean that, wouldn't that imply that nuclear energy must be supported?

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | September 30, 2007 3:54 AM

Joseph

As stated before - global climate change is just one of many environmental problems that we face and unfortunately it is not the most dangerous - only the most popularized and publicized. I am certain that you have to balance between doing urgent and important things yourself in every day life. Climate change is urgent but species extinction, soil erosions and water depletion is even more important? If we do not take care of these issues as well - we have very little chances of "adopting to" climate change in case we cannot "mitigate it".

In the context of climate change we are, as you must have noticed, mainly talking about C02 reductions. For that purpose - solar and nuclear can both be seen as solutions compared to oil, gas and coal. I prefer solar for economic reasons when it comes to peak load usage and for socio-political stability. That is all.

In the context of biodiversity, species extinction, soil erosion etc we have to do more than cut CO2. Solar or technology alone will not help with that. E O Wilson, the UN and most environmental organizations like the WWF therefore claim that we have to at least control population growth and reduce our intake of animal products.

I believe that we also need to change the way we perceive and feel nature, how we think about her. The time of separating us from her is over (one can almost talk about religious or technological fanaticism that leads us to despise the fact that we are mere mammals)?

E O Wilson has written so many breathtaking articles over the years that it is difficult to pick one - but I believe that Is Humanity Suicidal? (first published in the New York Times in 1993) is the most fitting to the topic at hand, despite its alarmist title. He takes position on that as well.)

He also paints a nice caricature of the average economist approaching ecology.. it still holds too much truth 14 years later for my taste! As long as people cannot relate to what Wilson is expressing - we will face one ecological challenge after another?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 30, 2007 3:01 PM

I sincerely hope for the mental health of us all (let alone the ecological) – that we will all soon become as rich as the rich.

So that we can work with our hands in the garden again,

In the freezing rain and howling wind. And then watch a drought come through and kill all your food.

so that we can eat healthy and fresh (daily) foods again

Only during the harvest seasons. Oh, and what was the risk of your food going rotten while it was being stored?

exercise naturally

And keep exercising even when you have a hernia, because you have to plant the crops otherwise your family will starve this year. And work yourself into exhaustion to get the harvest in before it rots.

and surround ourselves with nature.

In other words, pouring rain, howling winds, hail, snow, baking sun, hungry mosquitos.

Imagine a world where fathers and mothers can see their children grow up and not merely 1 hour per day?

And dispatch them off to apprenticeship or to work as a servant at age 12, because the mothers and fathers can't afford to keep them.

Would you rather live to be 70 as an obese person or would you rather have a full life of adventure for 30 years?

Obese person at age 70 please. 30 years is way too short a time.

Posted by Tracy W | October 1, 2007 11:01 AM

I live in Tokyo, and guess what? I shop for food for my wife and I everyday, have a small refrigerator, and little cupboard space. This characterizes most urban Japanese.

The result?:

(1) We're not fat, because

(2) We walk a lot, and

(3) Climb stairs (because accessibility laws are minimal), which means

(4) People in their 80s walk and shop too, because they've never been given a chance to deteriorate to the point that they need escalators.

(5) We eat primarily fresh produce and fish, bought that day, in many cases from local farmers (yes, in Tokyo), and much less processed food.

Where do we get the time to do this? We don't go to gyms, because we're naturally in shape and thin. We can cook a plain, fresh mackerel in less time than it takes to cook a frozen meal.

Japan is a fascinating study in unintended consequences of modernization, half empty/half full, and silver linings.

Posted by Mark | October 1, 2007 11:06 AM

Thank you Mark...

I love how the Japanese value freshness and we have a lot to learn/benefit from that attitude. Unfortunately they are adopting a lot from the West (eg milk, cheese, etc). Heart disease has increased together with the consumption of animal products in Japan!

Tracy wanted very badly to misinterpret me.. She prefers a warehouse to on-demand-supply that the Japanese have mastered and pioneered? She thinks I would want us all to go hungry!

She does not care that her food is older than a fresh on-demand Cisco router or Dell notebook?

Just say something that attacks any statement someone else, besides her, makes? Yes - I meant that we should all live in the cold and the rain and go hungry. It has been a pleasure communicating with you Tracy.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 1, 2007 11:50 AM

As an engineer, I would like to point out that many engineering problems are non-linear in nature. We deal with ambiguity and trade-offs and risk all the time. To an engineer, the environment and the ecosystem is an incredibly complex system about which we understand little in terms of how changes to one part affect changes to another.

An engineer probably wouldn't touch the ecosystem with a 10 foot pole... we don't know enough to make intelligent eco-engineering decisions.

When it comes to making specific changes to how we are affecting the environment, an engineer (depending on his discipline) could recommend technologies or methods to use to achieve those changes (as in reducing certain pollutants or making a process more efficient). But the engineering solution can only come after you know what you want. An engineer (acting as an engineer) can't tell you what solution is politically acceptable or what one "should" or "shouldn't" do. Someone else needs to frame the question.

As far as how rich we are now compared to the past, technological advances make it hard to compare poverty statistics from very many years in the past. When I read any comparison of the number of poor now vs. some age in the past, I have to laugh... our "poor" have things that the wealthiest person wouldn't have imagined even only 100 years ago.

I find it ironic that advances in technology are allowing some people to live a more "natural" lifestyle where they take the good parts and leave out the bad parts. I'm happy for them to do so as long as they don't fool themselves into thinking that they don't need the technology or the rest of society to live their life.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 1, 2007 12:07 PM

Earnest

After a clear and well argued start you end with the following:

When I read any comparison of the number of poor now vs. some age in the past, I have to laugh... our "poor" have things that the wealthiest person wouldn't have imagined even only 100 years ago.

I am not sure what you mean? Poor people in the US? Yes - poor people in Beverly Hills are pathetic...

The 800 million humans who go hungry worldwide are not? A century or two ago we had less people in total inhabiting the world and today we have the same number starving? BTW - despite having reversed the growth rate of the hungry - they still grow in nominal terms every second. ie every second more hungry people come into this world than ever before in time!

I find it ironic that advances in technology are allowing some people to live a more "natural" lifestyle where they take the good parts and leave out the bad parts.

Ironic? why - isn't exactly that what technology and progress should be all about? In fact - if one substituded "ironic" with something positive like "life saving" or merely "wonderful" - then your sentence would have been one of the most important ones I have heard in ages?

why try to build an airplane that is not aligned with natural laws of aerodynamics and gravity - even if we could?

The idea of free-market economics is to follow the forces that have created so much life, biodiversity and natural riches and apply it for our cultural riches and growth?

Why should our technologies and economics not be aligned with laws of sustainability and hence help us to live more natural lifestyles?

When i was young my father told me that unless I do sports (or at least use my body) - I will get depressed. It is just something natural that any happy mammal individual needs. Today I hear the same message under a very different paradigm. "Sports and exercise can help you with depression..." What? NOOooo! It is the other way around?

I'm happy for them to do so as long as they don't fool themselves into thinking that they don't need the technology or the rest of society to live their life.

Here you lose me? Apes use technology.. many animals use technology? Social animals all need "society".. where is this coming from and what does it mean?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 1, 2007 12:48 PM

"Are you saying that other types of biology can be treated as vector spaces? Or are you using technical mathematical terms without understanding them?"-Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger

Well, I have taken a kernal of corn.

Posted by Njorl | October 1, 2007 4:17 PM

Njorl

Well, I have taken a kernal of corn.

You are a programmer then?

The KERNAL was known as kernel inside of Commodore since the PET days, but in 1980 Robert Russell misspelled the word in his notebooks forming the word kernal. When Commodore technical writers Neil Harris and Andy Finkel collected Russell's notes and used them as the basis for the VIC-20 programmer's manual, the misspelling followed them along and stuck.

It was not a long way from there to the Korn shell...

The expression "kernal of korn" is actually not known to many?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | October 1, 2007 5:34 PM

When I was living in Paris, I had a 1 cubic foot fridge/freezer combo which meant that I was shopping for food every day. But that was not an inconvience as I had a patisserie on the first floor of my apartment building, three vegetable/fruit stalls, a dairy store, and a butcher and a fishmongerer within three blocks of me. Even more conveintly, all of these vendors were between my typical subway stop and my front door, so my additional walking commute time was next to nil except for the wandering around and loving the smell time.

Large fridges are a substitute for ice boxes, time and dense market networks. They use energy and capital to replace location and in the American context that is a common trade-off, but other contexts the trade-offs are nowhere near as strong in favor of a large fridge.

Posted by fester | October 2, 2007 2:19 PM