High Sierra Topix

I'm posting this because it's a slow day at work and I used to think that everyone would choose the same option as me but have learned that I'm somewhat alone in this. I think on a backpacking forum I may find some like-minded souls for reasons that would be obvious to those of us that would choose option two.

Here are your choices and it would only apply to you:

Option 1: Nothing changes, carry on as usual.

Option 2: You no longer require food or drink and are never hungry or thirsty again. However, you cannot eat or drink anything ever again.

This one relatively easy...nothing changes - business as usual...have too much invested.

After spending years as a tuxedo-wearing, 5-star, restaurant captain...working the front of the house in many a fine culinary establishment...now take great pride in both eating and sharing my own cooking. Add to that, having once achieved the certified level 2 - Sommelier, you’ll need to have a deep appreciation and passion for wine...hate to lose that one either.

Plus, all my backpacking trips usually revolve around fishing...from the solitary catching part to all the social aspects found around the frying pan. Come to think of it, many of the great times in my life were socially centered around a kitchen, a dining table, or a bar... eating and drinking.
Some may prefer the adage "Eat to live", but... would rather live to eat well.

Nothing changes, except the menu occasionally.

I love to eat and I love to cook, and I also love brewing beer nearly as much as drinking it, so nothing changes.

Nothing changes.

I guess you are asking if you eat and drink for pleasure or for need. I am sure we are all a mix of each. So which is the priority?

If my phisical and mental abilities would stay the same, I would choose B. What a relief not to worry about food and water. I have spent my life shopping, cooking, cleaning up, planning food for others and myself, that I really cannot wait to have that done.

Now if I were to age such that I could do less and less, perhaps B would not be as appealing, since food can be an activity to enjoy when you can do little else. And if someone else would do all the work, I may be more inclined to eat for pleasure. But that really is not having everything stay the same.

Now to be honest, I am sitting here with a glass of wine, answering this question.

B for me please- what freedom!*

*I'm assuming that you'll still let me have my medicinal brandy

My wife is a chef, I'm retired from the wine business, and we're in Paris right now after a week of eating and drinking in Bordeaux.

Are you nuts? Grin. Sure our packs would be lighter...but no foie gras or Champagne? No Camembert with truffles? No chocolate? No Cabernet?

Ugh.

I have no sense of smell. None. Don't ever remember being able to smell. So the only taste that I have is what's on my tongue; sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and savory. But I love to cook. And eat. Which is weird, I know. My family is amazed that I can cook things that taste good without being able to actually taste them. I guess I just get lucky! So my enjoyment of food relies mostly on texture and taste buds. I like the contrast in textures of foods. A little crunch, a little soft. A little tang, a little sweet. That kind of thing.

Even with all of that, I choose option 1.

Looks like about 1.5 people that realize how much time, money and effort you would save with option two. At long as you kept warm and didn't drown you could just wander the mountains forever! I bet you could work at least 30% less with money saved.


Along that same line, a friend of mine who had Crohn's disease was only allowed to eat some kind of special shakes for a while. The doctor's said they had everything you need in them. Anyone know what that is or where to get some!? I want to fill my pantry and backpack with them and not have to worry about food anymore