h a l f b a k e r y
[marked-for-tagline]
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Pulp is good, it makes me feel like I'm ingesting something natural, something substantial. and I think milk should seem like something natural and substantial too, especially skim milk, as its only resemblance to milk is its colour.
Pulp could be made out up ground up tapioca bits like in bubble
teas, or they could be made out of pastrami, or perhaps some third option I can't really think of.
Annotation:
|
| |
This idea makes me ANGRY! |
|
| |
I wasn't going to vote on this one until I saw that it made [bird] so angry. Heh! |
|
| |
There were beverages a couple years ago, with "things" suspended in them. Little round colorful floating globs. But it was a clear liquid, not milk. |
|
| |
Yech...milk shouldn't have pulp. If you want floaty bits, you can boil your milk or add a little vinegar to make curds and whey. |
|
| |
futurebird I'm with you, people should leave alone what they don't know sh*t about. |
|
| |
-Now angry, german dairy farmer |
|
| |
Melted mint choc chip ice cream is quite nice, and I don't think it qualifies as frankensteinian tampering with the forces of nature. |
|
| |
Add a little salt to milk. Instant junket. |
|
| |
// I think milk should seem like something natural //
Me too. Cows milk is indeed very natural - for a calf! It's not remotely natural for us humans to steal the baby food from a completely different species and drink it. The composition of cows milk is designed to fatten up calves and is wholy innapropriate for humans. In fact the more you think about it the more disgusting it sounds. Adding pulpy muck doesn't help. |
|
| |
Eggs are unfertilised ova and come out of chicken's bums but I still love 'em. |
|
| |
Coffee is water which has been artifically heated and poured over plant seeds which have been dried, roasted and ground. How natural is that? By your logic, [dob], we should only be eating wild vegetables, fruits, berries and fungi,eaten raw and washed down with cold water...and breast milk. |
|
| |
//we should only be eating wild vegetables, fruits, berries and fungi,eaten raw and washed down with cold water// |
|
| |
Plants, fungi and cryptosporidium are alive. It's not our place to murder them. Fruit and berries are unborn plants... big no-no. That just leaves breast milk, I guess. |
|
| |
[UB] You offerin'. You could feed a family of five with that one huge, central breast of yours. |
|
| |
Blobby milk? Sounds like buttermilk to me. |
|
| |
I bought one of those once. It was called UFO's. I left it on my desk at work, and somebody stole it. |
|
| |
Sugggestion: oatmeal / porridge. |
|
| |
[squeak]. I like eggs too (free range only of course). It is indeed unnatural to drink coffee - which contains a number of chemicals which are generally thought to have a detrimental effect on the human body. I do that too (and smoke). I'm not telling other people what to eat - I'm merely pointing out that [bobofthefuture]'s desire that “milk should seem like something natural” depends on your view of what is 'natural' , and that drinking a substance which is rich in fats and all sorts of stuff aimed at sustaining a calf is not really 'natural' for a human in the first place. My personal moral perspective leads me to shun dairy products because I don't want to be part of a system that ultimately leads to the death of calves, but that's my opinion and I don’t expect everyone to agree. |
|
| |
I suspect that if you started with the question “what is a natural diet (for humans)” you may well end up concluding that // we should only be eating wild vegetables, fruits, berries and fungi, eaten raw and washed down with cold water // although I think the breast milk should be avoided as it too is targeted at infants. And you forgot nuts. I tend to think that ‘natural’ in the context of diet means ‘in sympathy with what our body has evolved to process’ although I would be prepared to extend that to ‘or is capable of processing without adverse effects’. Interestingly this has no moral dimension and might well include human flesh! I’m not sure when cooking was invented and hence whether or not we could be said to have evolved the ability to eat cooked food. It is also possible for a process (like cooking) to transform something unnatural for us to eat into something natural. It’s also possible to eat something unnatural (like alcohol) without permanent damage because we have very flexible and adaptable bodies. |
|
| |
[dob] I agree entirely with your second paragraph. I would however go further and say that using certain, perhaps unlikely substances as a food source (including milk) is an essential part of survival as the opportunistic, adaptable animal which man is. |
|
| |
Cooked food is no challenge to eat. No adaptation was necessary, I imagine. It's easier to digest, it contains less bacteria and often tastes better than raw food. When did humans (or humanoids) discover fire? Anyone know? Well, I expect that cooking was invented in the same week, if not in the same day. |
|
| |
[squeak] I agree that being adaptable (as a type of behaviour) is essential to survival. However if you imagine a food which is poisonous when raw but edible when cooked – that food item itself cannot be essential to our survival (because otherwise we would have died out prior to the invention of cooking!). The technique is but the food item isn’t. The question then is would that foodstuff be part of our ‘natural’ diet? |
|
| |
Humans did not discover fire – it was already part of the natural world we evolved in, prior to our existence. We presumably did discover how to CONTROL fire though – and it’s easy to see how the warmth and protection from fire-fearing predators it provides would confer an evolutionary advantage upon us. At what point we then discovered that using the fire to alter our food was advantageous is another interesting question. I guess I’m wandering far off topic now so I’ll stop. I still contend that cow’s milk is not a natural part of our diet though – and I suspect many nutritionists would be able to tell us about the impact that diary consumption has on our bodies which have not yet evolved the ability to process cows milk without negative side effects. |
|
| |
Man, that would be a great idea. But I would change it to chocolate milk, like someone suggested, and the pulp could be coconut. Imagine, a coconut/chocolate pie in a glass. Yum! |
|
| |
yuk but why is Future quite so angry? Its only thick milk. |
|
| |
Leave some milk out in the sun and it will generate "pulp". |
|
| |
Most people of Northern European decent do have bodies evoled to process milk into adulthood. The minority who don't are "lactose-intolerant." I think it has something to do with following herds of reindeer around for generations. I don't know what the nutrition/health comparison between reindeer and cow milk is. |
|
| |
Side note: lactose intolerant African herders came up with a great invention- yoghurt. (That and getting a little cow-blood, not enough to injure the cow- yumm) Now that's natural. |
|
| |
People aren't actually lactose intolerant. Lactose is just a sugar. If anything, they are casein intolerant. |
|
| |
My daughter had a milk allergy, as a little'un. It was an allergy to Beta-casein, which is a protein. In fact, almost all allergies are reactions to some sort of protein. |
|
| |