Pop

As I established in an earlier post, coffee is good but it’s weird. And from what I know about biology that’s because the way humans are made we often feel good from weird things because we find ways to extrapolate the reward-systems that come from our survival instincts that have developed over thousands of years of evolution.

So the same applies to pop (a.k.a. soda/sodapop). 

To me it’s a bit more intuitive why we crave this kind of drink than coffee - sugar is something that is naturally found in other things people normally consume as infants such as fruit and milk and most people no matter the age receive pleasure from its sweet taste and recieve a quick energy burst (or at least dopamine rush). 

Whereas the taste of coffee beans is very unique and caffeine, although also a source of energy, usually gives one a foreign and uncomfortable feeling the first few times it’s consumed (I guess a lot of pop has caffeine as well though).

Obviously pop, because of the sugar, has a lot more known negative health effects than coffee though. So what’s weird to me about our consumption of pop, is the types of settings and frequency of consumption of pop that is socially acceptable. 

It seems pretty reasonable and intuitive to have a liquid to go along with a meal to help digest a meal along hydrating and cleaning out the mouth after eating. But why when you go out to eat at a restaurant whether it be fast-food or a diner or a fancy sit-down is pop advertised as a normal option to wash down your meal with? 

If we pay attention to what we’re consuming does slugging back the cola or root beer after taking a few bites of the roast chicken or lasagna or hamburger or salad actually feel good, let alone taste good? Why are Coca-Cola or Pepsi sugary soft drink products ubiquitous with dining out? Why did I feel well-cultured as a kid asking for a second or third refill on my Mountain Dew at Swiss Chalet?

Kids don’t tend to think long-term as much and care a lot about health effects as maybe some other age groups do (although maybe long-term thinking and care about overall well-being has less to do with maturity and education and ethics than age - i.e. people’s views on climate change). 

But my point here is, why do we accept and not question more that corporations sell things that may give us short-term pleasure or comfort but ultimately harm our well-being in the long-term because of the health effects and potential addiction? And why do we allow them market these things as socially acceptable, such as pop being a fundamental part of the dining out experience?

I guess government action with taxes or regulations is a plausible solution. But why do we let corporations determine social norms? And how do the individual people working for these corporations live with themselves knowing they’re taking advantage of people’s survival instinct reward systems for their own profit? Or are individual consumers the one’s responsible for their own actions?

I don’t know. I used to be obsessed with these kind of questions, about health and responsibility and morality, I thought they were the some of the most important questions of life. 

Enneagram can maybe provide some explanation for why I care about these things or at least can be used to categorize me (type 1). 

But after having a lot of my fundamental ways of thinking challenged and ripped apart over the past year or so, I’m realizing that although I do quite enjoy asking these questions and pondering societal issues in the end I don’t need to attach such great significance to them.

Questioning things like this may be like drinking pop for me - may be weird, may be illogical, may be unhealthy do all the time but can be entertaining and pleasurable sometimes so might as well just enjoy it (which I have been doing here :) ).

(But also what I’ve written here I think is related to this, so maybe attaching great significance to these questions isn’t misguided…)