Forget miracle ingredients. Lose the fancy techniques. Heck, toss out the extra-special gadgets. I’ve realized that the best way to make any meal taste better is to add great company. The best dinner guests, whether they be family, friends, or complete strangers, turn a mediocre meal into an enjoyable event and elevate a great meal to the sublime.
Ever since I moved out on my own and started eating alone, I’ve had many opportunities to encounter this phenomenon. In the first few months, I was simply amazed at the novelty of cooking for myself. Like a very young child, practically anything I experienced was an astounding discovery. “Look, Ma, I can make rice without a rice cooker! Look, Pa, I can cut my own fruit!” (Yes, I’ve reached the age of majority in every state and province, and my daddy still cuts and peels fruit for me.) Lately, however, cooking and eating alone has become a tiresome chore as the gloss of independence has worn off of the list of things I simply must do every day. I still make things like Caribbean-inspired pork roast, lemon-coconut cupcakes, and homemade honey garlic vinaigrette for everyday dinners, but food just doesn’t taste quite as good as when I first started cooking in earnest. My problems are twofold: first, my culinary standards have gone up, as you may already know,and second, it’s just getting lonely to eat by myself.
Part of the essential experience of eating is the social aspect of sharing a meal. Food isn’t, or shouldn’t be, merely sustenance for the body, but should also be a way of nourishing the soul. If eating were only about taking the right combination of nutrients to ensure physical health, one would only need to shove food down one’s gullet without regard for taste, presentation, aroma, or enjoyment. In fact, when I first broached my idea for “a future without food” to my friend Talia, she reminded me of the whole social culture of food that is integral to the act of eating. I hypothesized that the changing forms of entertainment and sensory stimulation could serve as a replacement for the sensual pleasure derived from eating – basically a virtual world hypothesis – while nutritional science would eventually find the optimal balance of nutrients needed to maximize physical well-being.
There are two glaring fallacies inherent in this hypothesis: first, that if mere intellectual stimulation would do away with the rich food cultures all around the world, it would have done so already. This part of the argument is basically the same as the arguments to any other new technology; after all, Plato argued that writing enfeebles the mind, and the telephone was feared as a destructor of face-to-face communication. Second, as Michael Pollan’s book In Defense of Food In Defense of Food makes clear, nutritional science is a frustrating discipline because the reductionist methods that are used in science (that is, isolating the variable that controls change and attempting to account for all others) run counter to the actual practice of eating, in which multiple factors come into play, from the combination of certain foods to eating habits to cooking methods.
Most importantly, the pleasure of cooking and eating with other people simply cannot be lost or replaced by other simulacra. Sharing food with loved ones and new friends is an irreplaceable, enjoyable experience. There really is nothing better than company; in the words of Steven Sondheim, “And that’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? / That’s what it’s really about, / Really about!”





