Poll: If you never had to eat...

[saoirse13]

Yes because burritos.

Have you ever had a burrito?

That shit is just delicious.

I've never had one but i intend to on holiday in florida.... Are they really that shitballs amazing?

They are, they really, really are...

You probably wont be disappointed. I have to put that qualifier in there because there are some truly strange people out there.

I have to say, since booking the holiday I've been mostly excited about finally getting a Burrito, And well steak... Cant forget steak haha

 

[Heronblade]

I enjoy cooking food, I enjoy eating food. I particularly enjoy eating food that I did a good job with.

So yeah, not much thought to that. It would reduce how often I eat, but not by a huge amount.

 

[Lucane]

I'd only eat out of desire for flavor or texture like only eating once every other month and one of them be like a fancy fresh low on preservatives chocolate cake or a really great apple pie or In celebration of something. So I'd have little need of a fridge, or are we the only one like this and not the whole planet?

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

Sure, I'd still eat something incredibly delicious every now and again, but like most people, not needing food means not needing to spend money on it. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be a food industry anymore though...so there would be no need for restaurants. Now I'm curious...are we talking like, just out of nowhere we don't need to eat, or hypothetically from the beginning of time we didn't need to eat? Because that matters to me...no need for food means no need to make new foods, meaning some of my favorite delicious things wouldn't exist ._. Also...what happens to the food after you eat it? I see you said eating goes as normal, so we still digest normal? Like...I've just confused myself by thinking way too deeply about this. Agh, anyway, yeah, I guess I'd still eat, assuming we still had the same foods we have now, even if logically that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Plucky]

Think i have to weigh up the pros and cons...

Pros
- Not having to eat could mean that you won't have to fill up on basics such as bread, but could fill up on tasty junk foods without going over any nutritional limits, making it easier to enjoy.
- There's no need to go to a bathroom...or would we?
- If being unable to eat means we have constant energy, does it mean that we'll never grow fat nor thinner? how about no need to sleep, except for possibly passively?
- How about enzymes? if you don't need food, does it mean you're constantly producing bile or whatever? Maybe they can experiment on it to solve potential bowel diseases or something like diabetes?



Cons
- If we're unable to eat, then that would mean that the energy process stopped, we'd possibly be the same energy in the morning than the evening, eventually being perpetually awake due to feeling fine will cause mental exhaustion on your psyche, eventually having suicidal thoughts due to being unable to eat or sleep.
- Eating food is good....the tastes is one of the few basic pleasures people can have with their senses.
- Does your organs regenerate? what if people need you to replace the foodsource of the world, whilst also providing organs for everyone...you'll be in constant pain whilst they drain out your bile for medicinal science.
- Assuming that your body makes the correct amount of energy to compensate for the inability to eat food, would it increase due to more exercise due to no fat? eventually you'll be a tumorous blob of muscle due to doing general things just to feel human y replacing food with exercise...

 

[Psychobabble]

Of course I'd still eat. Somebody has to keep down the rat population.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

Oh man, you guys should look up Soylent. (Not the fictional 'made of people' thing, but the real thing someone is trying to make to allow for cheap yet nutritious eating. It's basically a slurry of raw materials. But I am not a biologist; go look at their research and stuff.)

I am going to try for this as soon as it formally comes out, because I really would rather not pay much for food, but I still plan on going to nice restaurants. If I didn't need to eat to live at all, I'd still buy nice food once in a while, because eating is a fun experience and I like nice cooking. Day to day, though, food is kind of a chore, and I'd rather spend the time and money doing something else unless I feel a burning desire for Nice Food.

 

[Idlemessiah]

Well theres 2 ways of looking at it.

1. If it was just a superpower that I alone had then sure I'd still eat. I wouldn't like a normal person but I'd still go out for dinner / coffee as a social thing.

2. If all humankind developed the this then I probably wouldn't eat at all since food would become an expensively lavish product. Rich people would have parties where they all eat steak just because they can even though it benefits no one.

 

[Raddra]

Very occasionally but not often. I would be happy to lose a few pounds without the discomfort.

 

[prpshrt]

A life without steak?! Oh the horror. I've always appreciated the flavors of different types of cuisine so, man not having food would be hard.

 

[EHKOS]

Pooping is gross and a waste of time. And I throw up a lot due to nerves, so I would really only treat myself once in a while.

 

[Not Matt]

I would continue mostly for social reasons. If I am invited on dinner at somebody's place or out on a date or just in a McDonald's with friends and they want to have something.

But as a thing I do for myself and I don't need. Pass

 

[luclin92]

i think i would eat if other people are going for some food, but otherwise i probably would just use that money on other things

 

[Patathatapon]

I'd lean towards no mostly, but there is no middle ground saying "kinda sorta". I'd probably, every once in a while, eat something for the taste, but it would be more considered as a treat. As others have said, food costs money, which I can spend on other things.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Ok so I'm just interested to see what the general consensus here is. Let's say hypothetically, you don't have to eat to live. You won't get hungry, you won't die of malnutrition. No semantics. Everything will be exactly the same except you won't suffer negative repercussions if you don't eat.

Eating would pretty much be exactly the same as well, it wont screw with your weird human photosynthesis or make you uncomfortably full forever, you just wouldn't need to do it anymore.

Under those circumstances, would you still eat even remotely often?

Question: Would I still poop? If not, then would I poop only if I ate?

I love food, so I'd probably still eat daily, it would just be in significantly smaller portions. I would probably cook in grams, experimenting purely with flavor.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

Steak for wild animals, since they all taste good. I am a hunter and I HAVE to know what that animal tastes like. Other then that I woulds drink beer forever

 

[carnex]

I love to eat. It's not a chore, it's a pleasure therefor I would still eat.