Did Cooking Make Us Human?

Did Cooking Make Us Human?

The question proposed has some interesting aspects that were mentioned in the documentary “Did Cooking Make Us Human?”. The documentary displayed many different experiments that showed how our diets were different than our previous ancestors, how cooked food provided more energy, how we digest raw and cook food, and many other contributions to the question. The film tried to answer if cooking contributed to the evolution of a primate/human hybrid link becoming more human like due to the advantages of cooking (if cooking was the extra push that contributed to our ancestors becoming more human). I found the snake and rat experiment most interesting. The snake experiment was geniusly designed. Obviously, it’s going to take less amino acids and digestive enzymes to break down something that is already cooked (denatured) than something that is raw and has to denature significantly more muscle and tissue fibers. I never would have thought to use pythons to find digestive energy patterns. The mice experiment was intriguing as well. Again, it was another obvious outcome, but greatly designed. Not too complicated but still answered a very complex question. I’m beginning my thesis now and I have to design my own experiment so watching their experiments definitely gave me some inspiration for what I want to do.

For my own personal taste I prefer cooked food. Everything tasted better if it is cooked. It releases more sugars which increases tastiness. Raw vegetables are a no-no for me. When you chew a raw vegetable it just gets bigger and bigger in your mouth and more and more unappetizing. Cooked broccoli is great though. Fruit is a special exception. It can be raw or cooked and it’s still delicious. It already has a high sugar content when it’s raw so it does not need to be cooked to be classified as appetizing. Meat must be cooked! I will not eat anything uncooked (not even sushi). There are so many toxic microbes in raw chicken, pork, and beef that make it a must on the cooked list. Plus, it is so unappealing in its raw form. Our digestive systems would not handle raw meat well any way, and not just from the microbes. Our bodies would not take well to it because we are not used to eating it. All of these opinions are highly influenced by personal preference. The film did not change any of my opinions on raw or cooked food.

Based on the film I learned that cooking was a huge mechanism for humans to advance. It increased energy given by the food and reduced energy required to digest the food. This increase in energy provided an avenue for the species to evolve over generations into a more fit organism. Cooking also has an effect on culture. It is clear that food is not just associated with a biological necessity, but sometimes a social event. We are the only organism that cooks our food. Food can be a source of sadness, happiness, etc. It’s not just an energy source, but a component of emotion, memories, etc. I don’t think other organisms correlate those things to food, and if they do it is not as strong as ours.

The Goody reading showed how foods were made more readily available for people from other regions. Some of these techniques for doing so were freezing, excessive salting or pickling, new transportation machines and routes, and retailing. In the article it showed that traditional cooking (open flame) was not required to make new foods. Worcestershire sauce was made through chemical implications. Later on, it wasn’t just about meat and preserving. The sauce also required a fermentation process to taste edible to its makers. Fermenting whine has been around for a very long time, but fermented sauces seem to be at an introductory stage during the time period in the reading. It also introduces today’s concept of how we get our food. We don’t really get foods much on street corners any more, but we do purchase most of our food from stores and restaurants. From this reading, the way we get food has changed significantly from the techniques discussed in the film.

The Yasmeen reading discussed how restaurants, servants, and grocery stores are primary ways the citizens of Thailand get their food. Cooking is still a central part of meal time. It just isn’t prepared by the people eating it very often. This isn’t that different from us and our culture. Working people often get food from grocery stores due to lack of time to cook it themselves, but yet they still eat with their families. The social aspect of food is still there, but they just aren’t cooking it. Functionality is also a central part of food in today’s world. Cooking isn’t as primary to the average person as it used to be. Everyone always has somewhere to go or be so you grab food that is already prepared for you. It seems that Thailand is adopting a lot of the “got-to-go” urgency of our culture. The coffee cart ad is an example of that. They never had coffee carts, but the ad indicates so. I guess to bring a trendier feel to it. The relationship to food seems to be the same, they just aren’t making it. Access is also another significant change with the article in our relationship to food. Food is much cheaper (depending on the kind of food), and portion sizes are significantly bigger. Food isn’t as scarce as it used to be. In the film it is celebrated when the tribesmen catch a porcupine. We don’t really celebrate when someone brings home a pizza.

So in conclusion, cooking helped our ancestors to evolve due to the energy component in the cooked food and digestion. New techniques in food transportation and preservation aided in food availability, access, and introduced new foods to other regions. In today's world we are connected to our food, just not the way it is made. For some (where food is not easily accessible) it is celebrated when they do have something to cook. For others, when we do cook it is a celebrated event.