The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XXXVIII

[Samson]

A book I recently started reading talks about this. Here's a passage:

Spoiler :

Several lines of evidence indicate that spicing may represent a class of cultural adaptations to the problem of food-borne pathogens. Many spices are antimicrobials that can kill pathogens in foods. Globally, common spices are onions, pepper, garlic, cilantro, chili peppers (capsicum) and bay leaves. Here’s the idea: the use of many spices represents a cultural adaptation to the problem of pathogens in food, especially in meat. This challenge would have been most important before refrigerators came on the scene. To examine this, two biologists, Jennifer Billing and Paul Sherman, collected 4578 recipes from traditional cookbooks from populations around the world. They found three distinct patterns.

1. Spices are, in fact, antimicrobial. The most common spices in the world are also the most effective against bacteria. Some spices are also fungicides. Combinations of spices have synergistic effects, which may explain why ingredients like “chili power” (a mix of red pepper, onion, paprika, garlic, cumin and oregano) are so important. And, ingredients like lemon and lime, which are not on their own potent anti-microbials, appear to catalyze the bacteria killing effects of other spices.

2. People in hotter climates use more spices, and more of the most effective bacteria killers. In India and Indonesia, for example, most recipes used many anti-microbial spices, including onions, garlic, capsicum and coriander. Meanwhile, in Norway, recipes use some black pepper and occasionally a bit of parsley or lemon, but that’s about it.

3. Recipes appear to use spices in ways that increase their effectiveness. Some spices, like onions and garlic, whose killing power is resistant to heating, are deployed in the cooking process. Other spices like cilantro, whose antimicrobial properties might be damaged by heating, are added fresh in recipes.

Thus, many recipes and preferences appear to be cultural adaptations adapted to local environments that operate in subtle and nuanced ways not understood by those of us who love spicy foods. Billing and Sherman speculate that these evolved culturally, as healthier, more fertile and more successful families were preferentially imitated by less successful ones. This is quite plausible given what we know about our species’ evolved psychology for cultural learning, including specifically cultural learning about foods and plants.

The most interesting part to me is how customs like this can take hold without anyone really knowing why it's a good idea.

When I was taught bacteriology, which was many years ago, they told me that cumin and cardamom are bacteriostatic, as in they do not kill bacteria but they stop them growing, and that chilli does nothing to bacteria, it just stimulates the "heat" sensor in our tongue and masks the flavor of rotten meat.

 

[emzie]

How do you use this forum format, with threads dozens of pages long? I have such a hard time keeping track of conversations and what's been said by whom that I don't feel comfortable engaging usually.

 

[tjs282]

The most interesting part to me is how customs like this can take hold without anyone really knowing why it's a good idea.

There could actually be some kind of a population-selectivity effect in play.

i.e. Villages/ tribes which adopted the habit of salting/ spicing their food to improve the taste (and/or disguise the taste of ingredients which were slightly past their best), might 'coincidentally' tend to be healthier (and thus survive and prosper), compared to those which didn't.

Given humans' tendency to communicate, pass knowledge down to descendants, and/or engage in resource-redistribution-by-violence; plus a long enough timespan (500-1000 years would likely be enough) to percolate the spicing-habit between neighbouring villages, and/or remove the non-spicers (as a result of disease, or conquest), then eventually every village in a given geographic area will do it.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Or maybe the spicers told the nonspicers "hey, try adding spices to your food, it makes it taste better!"

 

[cardgame]

How do you use this forum format, with threads dozens of pages long? I have such a hard time keeping track of conversations and what's been said by whom that I don't feel comfortable engaging usually.

Just go to the last few pages and keep up from there

 

[Truthy]

When I was taught bacteriology, which was many years ago, they told me that cumin and cardamom are bacteriostatic, as in they do not kill bacteria but they stop them growing, and that chilli does nothing to bacteria, it just stimulates the "heat" sensor in our tongue and masks the flavor of rotten meat.

The book is called "The Secret of Our Success" by this guy Joseph Henrich, a Harvard prof. It's an extremely interesting book, but occasionally I get the sense he's overstating his arguments.

There could actually be some kind of a population-selectivity effect in play.

i.e. Villages/ tribes which adopted the habit of salting/ spicing their food to improve the taste (and/or disguise the taste of ingredients which were slightly past their best), might 'coincidentally' tend to be healthier (and thus survive and prosper), compared to those which didn't.

Given humans' tendency to communicate, pass knowledge down to descendants, and/or engage in resource-redistribution-by-violence; plus a long enough timespan (500-1000 years would likely be enough) to percolate the spicing-habit between neighbouring villages, and/or remove the non-spicers (as a result of disease, or conquest), then eventually every village in a given geographic area will do it.

The author prefers individual/family-level "preferential imitation" as the key mechanism, but I imagine population-level mechanisms are plausible too.

 

[emzie]

Just go to the last few pages and keep up from there

wherever I start though, it's in the middle of something else and I don't know how you all got to the arbitrary point I'm choosing to start from

 

[Birdjaguar]

wherever I start though, it's in the middle of something else and I don't know how you all got to the arbitrary point I'm choosing to start from

When I get lots of pages behind in thread, I just go two pages back from the newest and pretend it's brand new at that point. Tail ends of conversations get ignored and new ones followed.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

What is with Disney live-actioning all its animated movies? Not to extend the copyright. I guess maybe for $$$, but they'd also make a profit doing something actually original.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Nobody watches anything original anymore. It has to be a reboot, remake, or sequel. You know, a pre-canned plot and characters we are all familiar with so we don't have to think.

I hate Hollywood.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, it isn't like the animated Aladdin circa 1992 was original material to begin with. To quote Wikipedia, "Since it first appeared in the early 18th century, Aladdin and the Magic Lamp has been one of the best known and most retold of all fairy tales."

 

[The_J]

Nobody watches anything original anymore. It has to be a reboot, remake, or sequel. You know, a pre-canned plot and characters we are all familiar with so we don't have to think.

I hate Hollywood.

I'd rather think this is not the main driver. I think it's more a combo of a) selling old material to an older audience without having to re-do tge creative part, therefore cheaper b) due to known success beforw it will again be a success and c) nostalgia of the people who have seen the original, without making them feel childish.

The lazynesd factor is intriguing, but not sure if it's a major factor.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What is with Disney live-actioning all its animated movies? Not to extend the copyright. I guess maybe for $$$, but they'd also make a profit doing something actually original.

They do it mainly for the money, I should think. That, and assuming the audience has collective dementia and can't remember the last remake, or that modern audiences think anything over 5 years old belongs in the Dark Ages. The Parent Trap and Freaky Friday have been remade more than once.

Personally, I prefer the older Disney shows. The first movie poster I ever had on my bedroom wall was of Aurora and the Prince, from Sleeping Beauty (it was an insert in a comic; I read the book versions of these movies long before seeing any of them in theatres).

The older live action Disney movies may be dated by modern standards, but I find no enjoyment in any of the remade movies that originally starred Kurt Russell or Dean Jones.

I've been watching a lot of PBS lately, and suspect that will be my go-to channel for TV watching, at least until October 21.

 

[Zkribbler]

Well, it isn't like the animated Aladdin circa 1992 was original material to begin with. To quote Wikipedia, "Since it first appeared in the early 18th century, Aladdin and the Magic Lamp has been one of the best known and most retold of all fairy tales."

The original Aladdin took place in Kazakhstan, which was inaccurately called "China" and in Zanzibar. There was al Addin, a djinn in a magic lamp, and maybe a princess. There was no parrot and especially no humor. Because Aladdin 1992 is so different than the 1001 Arabian Nights version, I'd say Aladdin 1992 is original. I didn't bother with the Will Smith fiasco.

I just watched the live version of Cinderella last night. It is the best fairy tale movie ever made. Yes, you can see that it's based on the Disney cartoon, but it is light years better.

The new versions of Parent Trap and Freaky Friday are far better than the originals.

Maleficent is far better than Snow White.

The movie version of Wizard of Oz is better than the novella, albeit the book is more creative. The makers of that latest movie should be shot. [I haven't yet seen Wicked, so no comment.] Hmm, Tin Man is inspired by Oz but so different one cannot compare.

A few years ago, there was a glut of Grimm's Bros. slaughterfests. Terrible.

I don't think there's ever been a good version of Frankenstein or Dracula. The same can be said of Beauty and the Beast.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

What is with Disney live-actioning all its animated movies? Not to extend the copyright. I guess maybe for $$$, but they'd also make a profit doing something actually original.

Disney doesn't have to credit or compensate the original writers and creators of the animated movies when making a live action adaption.

 

[Broken_Erika]

I prefer the this version of Oz.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Disney doesn't have to credit or compensate the original writers and creators of the animated movies when making a live action adaption.

But unless they're copying it straight from the animated movie, they have to hire a writer to adapt it to live-action. So why can't they hire a writer to make something new instead?

 

[Zkribbler]

...why can't they hire a writer to make something new instead?

Marketing, esp name recognition. People are more comfortable shelling out $ for something they're familiar with.

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

Nobody watches anything original anymore. It has to be a reboot, remake, or sequel. You know, a pre-canned plot and characters we are all familiar with so we don't have to think.

I hate Hollywood.

The same thing is happening with video games, or at least RTS's. Most of the big Triple-A RTS games are remakes. They've already remade Starcraft and Age of Empires I, and they're currently remastering Age of Empires 2 and the first two Command and Conquer games. I'm a big fan of real time strategy games but it feels like Microsoft and EA just can't be bothered to make something original and instead want sell us the same game twice. There is definitely a lack of originality, but it is nowhere as widespread as it is in Hollywood.

 

[Traitorfish]

The same thing is happening with video games, or at least RTS's. Most of the big Triple-A RTS games are remakes. They've already remade Starcraft and Age of Empires I, and they're currently remastering Age of Empires 2 and the first two Command and Conquer games. I'm a big fan of real time strategy games but it feels like Microsoft and EA just can't be bothered to make something original and instead want sell us the same game twice. There is definitely a lack of originality, but it is nowhere as widespread as it is in Hollywood.

With traditional RTS, that's partly because the genre has fallen in popularity since its heyday in the late 90s/early 20s, so the market just isn't there, or isn't perceived by publishers to be there, unless you have the name-recognition and nostalgia-appeal offered by one of these franchises. If a producer was going to sink big bucks into a wholly new franchise, they'd expect something more in the vein of Total War than Total Annihilation.

I don't think that a similar dynamic can describe the Disney remakes, because animated children's films are probably at their all-time commercial peak.