Did Early Humans Invent Hot Pot in Geothermal Pools?(atlasobscura.com) |
Did Early Humans Invent Hot Pot in Geothermal Pools?(atlasobscura.com) |
https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/40251/cooking-food-in-ho...
Obviously much more recent, but shows that when you live around a bunch of free hot water, it’s a practical cooking method.
Here’s our list of ingredients we like if anyone is curious. Would love to hear other recommendations to try too:
King oyster mushrooms, Shitaki mushrooms, Tofu skin dried, Frozen bean curd rolls frozen, Fried tofu, Bean curd nuggets, Choripdong Oriental Style Noodles, Bok Choy, Broccoli, Corn on cob, Lotus root, Beef (thin sliced), Shrimp
Part of the fun is plating the ingredients before eating and working on our presentation skills together. It’s really rewarding when we can make it look like they do at the restaurant.
After some trial and error, we also recommend the Little Lamb broths. They comes in different spice levels and taste just like the restaurant. All you need to do is add six cups of water: https://www.amazon.com/Little-Sheep-Soup-Base-235-Grams/dp/B...
FYI that’s not an affiliate link, I just like hot pot and wanted to share.
(Edit - formatting)
https://www.99ranch.com/zh-hant/shop/condiments_and_spices/s...
Besides beef, thinly sliced lamb and pork are also great. I recommend getting a manual frozen meat slicer like https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Po3rfCn6L.... It pays for itself very quickly since you can just buy any meat, including nicer cuts, at the bulk price - I think mine literally paid for itself in the first session.
Little (fat) sheep is in fact one of the biggest Chinese hot pot chains. It might be THE broth from the restaurant.
But, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it was probably someone with boiled water from that whole fire thing we figured out a while ago that invented the revolutionary idea of putting more than just a dead animal into the water.
Just a guess though.
Definitely plausible.
In Iceland they also use the hotsprings to cook bread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-7iUw8Sl0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BAgbrau%C3%B0?wprov=sfla1
It is a stupid idea from Jungian and Froidian "psychology" that symbols have been invented once and then propagated everywhere, and that this supposed propagation is an evidence of migration pathways and relationship.
Same stupidity goes with linguistics - if something is called by the same name in the different parts of the world, there must be an infallible evidence of migration and relation.
No, everything related to the constraints of the environment (Nature) has been invented many times independently. Basic symbols based on geometric shapes too.
Peer review is not by any means criterion for even approximation to the truth. The article in question should have been reviewed exactly like I did.
Humanities are not exact sciences for a single reason - they comprise too many variables for a primate brain to reason about. There's no god mandated set of borders defining "types" of science.
There are fields so complex that they have to be dealt in so high an abstraction level that we call them subjective. Absolutely does not mean that the objects they study are unworthy of study. Precisely the opposite, in fact.
Also does not mean that, even if a portion of people are faking, there are no valuable insights coming from the scientific field.
I'll point out that there are a huge number of "fake efforts" in the hard sciences as well. Cost of doing science at scale with bad incentive engines.
Finally, if your issue with the "humanities" is with a perceived politization of the academia, I'd suggest formally educating yourself in those subjects and taking a place in said politics instead of, you know, acting like a reactionary teen or twentysumthin. No offense, but complaining about politization from the outside is a useless venting effort.
Questions of how human beings organize and treat each other are immensely complex, and of enormous importance. They're incredibly hard to study, and what study we can do is only in its infancy. But it's equally infantile to declare that it's irrelevant. And oddly, for people who pride themselves on their intellectual prowess, those who do tend to make it on the basis of a cursory "study" rather than serious engagement.
I have studied religions among other things, so I know very well what sectarian consensus is and how exactly it works to maintain a high social status.
Humanities and theoretical"sciences" are sects by every possible definition.
I have studied philosophy too.
