Eating
By Gopala
@pittan (156)
United Kingdom
April 25, 2007 9:01am CST
I have always wondered whether we live to eat or eat to live. I certainly consider myself belonging to the latter. However there were times I have put a lot of effort in getting something nice to eat. Does that mean I live to eat? Some cultures do put a lot of importance to food and spend lavishly to prepare them. Is it really necessary to spend a lot of money and time on food when we only need specific classes of food in the right propotion to survive? I guess it all depends on ones financial status. The rich i guess live to eat whilst the poor eat to live. What are your thoughts about this?
2 responses
@mystery5 (350)
• India
25 Apr 07
The ideal situation should definitely be to eat to live. But I don't think that the poor eat to live - they eat to survive. I'm sure if you gave them lots of tasty food, they'd be hogging it as much as any rich person.
It definitely isn't necessary to spend much on food. In India, when a person gains weight, people say he's becomes more 'healthy'. Wrong, I say he's become more sick. Living to eat is disasterous, because then all you do in life is eat - you're not capable of living anymore!
Its ok to occasionally go bonkers over food - everyone does it, but in general, as long as you balance it out, good for you!
