Previously, I shared my own understanding that cooking facilitates all progress of surviving through learning. I assert that there is no other logical possibility for these to occur; without a nutrient being first intervened and subdued to its fully rested states. Both at organic (movement) and micro-organic (bacterial).
Now – my opinion/s on the so-opposing arm of cooking. Raw foodism.
What is (right) or wrong about raw foodism?
Raw foodism argues that perfectionism already exists abundantly in nature. Should not be tampered with. Must be consumed raw.
My answer and opinion to this question? Everything in nature responds via Provocations. I see and interpret these responses as potential sources of threat; whether inactive (dormant) or active (passive). One thing that I hope (you and I agree) is that “Nature” is never docile.
I’ve asked “God” what “He” thinks of raw foodism. No answer. Shouting loudly beyond the clouds of methane, nitrous oxide, remnants of agent orange and nuclear wastes. Nothing. But surely – those gases all provokes all sorts of threat to my lungs, reproductive, neurological and cognitive systems.
I’ve asked what “nature” thinks. Still no answer. The free roaming wild boars, kangaroos, carnivorous flowers, or the bees; doing their own thing. Nothing. But the bee stings or the carnivorous flower could one day be very threatening to an unwary child. Or that just one swift kick from the roos’ leg can easily cripple a man. Okay, another provocative potentials of threat.
A valid conclusion I’d wager seems to be there is a threat in all realms of nature. Be it dormant or moving. Even if we take out the raw fruit off the ground, or a fresh slaughter of the lambs head for the fatty omega-3 rich brains. Microorganic threats potentially still lies dormant.
Rising trends of carnivorism amongst today’s Youtube’rs permeating throughout the recommended playlists argues that eating them is safe. All without heat. Is it truly that simple that we could all rely on this condensed, primal logistics? Unfortunately, my thoughts are split and not easily convinced one way or the other.
The Realistic Objectives = Digestibility and Palatability
I will start off being straight. Yes, I anecdotally prefers towards – cooked food in general. Cooked food always assures to me – a familiar, warm, nutrient digestibility. Because I believe that “Heat” is a metaphor of progress and process. An imposition of all state of changes. “Cold” on the other hand – imposes stasis and delays.
“Digestibility” I believe – also correlates synergistically with Palatability. This requires a perception of warmth. Thus, requiring “heat” to help pre-pare such an outcome.
The “tastiness” or “ripeness” of any given food is an undoubtedly strong determinant at how well I am going to readily (enzymatically ready) to partition nutrients. If a food taste somewhat pale, or unworthwhile – chances are I am unable to utilise any metabolic usefulness out of such food in their incomplete state of rest.
I assess, as major criteria among other things, based on temperature. Raw meat feels “cold” in the gut, as opposed to warmth of semi-cooked meats.
….Same goes to fruits and veggies. As much as I at times demonise fructose during carb-refeeds, I’d still nonetheless be more compelled to eat a perfectly ripe banana than an unripe one. Unripe fruits are completely chalky and leaves out an excessively dry areas in and all walls of the mouth. Irritating and “itchy” at times.
Also, many people ignore these questions –
- how much / how long often should I actually have to eat to gather my required calories?
- How long of a time I have to spend eating each time to reach reasonable satiety?
Vegetarian SJWs love comparing ourselves daringly to that of silver back gorillas. Them spending nine hours daily – to keep foraging & chewing cellulose 40 pounds a day. Should we all likewise graze an endless amount of endotoxins? Oh, not to mention cyanide like compounds from raw plant materials?
Isn’t the point of “nutrition” is to nurture, to “ration” (militarist term of) “reason”, and satiate the self – in the shortest amount of time?…Then “cooking” – is the only logical facility to that outcome. Case closed.
The primal man had no access to pressure cooker. But I’d wager he’d be so anxiously hungry. Searching for nutrients from having eaten; yet unable to assimilate any usefulness. From eating all that undigestible shrubs, hay and cellulose.
Completely raw meats? A “No” for me.
Unless fermented, aged or sufficiently salted and dried – I have no problem with likes of ham, few slice/s of salami or prosciuttos. Their elitist price tags barred me from consumptive luxury, anyway.
But I’d argue that the seemingly glorified safety amongst practicing raw carnivorism – it is neither accessibly nor consistently interpreted as safe to the general population.
We see advices time and time again – that animal welfare counts nutritionally towards conducive criteria. Make sure the animals are “clean”, “Free-range”, “Organic”, etc. Our current economics system however prohibit these foods accessibility to a select few. The consequent high pricing unfortunately deters the desires of safe raw consumption. As so widely purported to withstand any nutritional losses.
I’d also blame much of this is due to our industrialised methodology of production and sustainability. Especially amongst economy grade minced meats production. Which mixes questionable sources all at once. Gelatin is no problem. But remnants of hair, nails, dirt, stones and factory debris? No thanks.
General population toxicology studies from raw meat consumptions; from both muscle and gelatinous / organ meats have all likewise proved to be of genuine concern.
Undercooked meats also poses another problem. The lack of the physical breakability of the food itself. Few occassions I tried (very brief) baked beef tri-tip cut, with all its blood and jus. Yet it was extremely fatiguing experience.As I gnawed and teethed my way through the tough fibres of meat itself. “Morally” speaking, the blood affects me only a little. But it did not represent nor led me able to reconcile that primal notion of comfort, as I alluded to in previous part of this feature writeup.
In the context of pure survival mode – what about eating raw predators meat? I’d speculate this even more of a concern.
Predators likely inherit parasitic bacterias from each and every one of their prey in the food chain and thus, bacterial invasions from the preys they’ve eaten (which are most likely raw). It would also likely pose a transferrable risk to the human.
I’d remain hesitant if I were to eat such predator meats entirely raw; if one day I am thrown into the wild and prized myself a dead fox, coyote or wild boar. Thoroughly cooking the meat in such instance, seems prudent.
The Morality Subjectives = Hygiene & Orderliness.
Next – it’s all to do with hygiene and maintaining liberal sense of order.
“Cleanliness” and “cooking” = are both an inseparable compartmentalisation of orderly habits. Paving the way to support and maintain immunological equilibrium in any living mechanism. They are both part of the goal (of you guessed it) – either avoiding or killing unwanted pathogens. Millions-year evidence of the worm Caenorhabditis elegans exhibited avoidance-like “behaviour” upon sensing any nearby pathogen Bacillus thuringiensis. Likewise fast forwarding to our present female bullfrogs – intuitively demonstrated not to choose mates who are infected with Candida humicola.
Again, not to compare ourselves to racoons. But their human-like-dexterity paws led some important nerve sensitivities. This may explain why they seemingly wash their food. In order to enhance the reward signals of the foods they’re eating.
But of course excessiveness of hygiene is borderline, elitism. Food is meant to be eaten. Period.
What good is it for $25 bomb alaska dessert if I do not wish to ruin its delicate presentation? I am no chef, but look at us humans. Making cooking into a career of all sorts – of “arts”. So much so sadly that it becomes narcisism.
In conclusion – “cooking” is a pragmatic necessity.
I think, for the sake of lingual semantics – the best of an “answer” whether consuming raw foods is “safe” or “not safe” – depends on a qualitative balancing act. Between scrutinising the biological resilience of the individual consumer / the benefactor against assessing the wildly variable nutrients in their unintervened, untouched, unadulterated raw state.
You are you. I bear no ill wills towards anyone, either veganism or carnivorism. Should this or that method of consumption works for them. Their’s own individualised genetic and metabolic variables – only.
I am nonetheless convinced to give them my undying praise. That there is nothing else more primally simpler, than consuming things raw. Unadulterated. Unaltered. Minimally intervened. Slaugher, harvest and chew.
However, “Fresh” is an illusion of safe haven in the eye of the beholder. Awaiting are the unknown and unexplored – microcosmic chaos. Yet unfortunately on the other hand –“Adulterating” imposes fear and distrust. Especially amongst those responsible behind such intervention – even when widely purported as “safe” and “assuring”.
I’d remain well and wise to cook. Why? Because I have no right assuming all things in Nature is immutably benign.
Even when it’s “dead”. Plant or not plant.