There’s more going on here than you might think:
A few thoughts:
1. Competitive feasting has deep historical roots. It’s hypothesized to be one of the reasons for the transition between hunting-gathering and agriculture. Starving hunter-gathers presumably would not turn to agriculture, since that means burying grain instead of eating it and staying in a food-poor area instead of moving. However, moving from gathering to horticulture to agriculture could be a way of turning a current surplus into a future even-bigger surplus at the expense of being tied down and vulnerable to future famine.
2. Robin Hanson is a fan of explaining modern trends in terms of the tendency of high-status industrialists/agriculturalists to live according to forager norms instead of farmer norms. But he points out a hole in his hypothesis:
I hypothesize that the cultural pressures which long ago pushed folks from more natural forager ways into then-more-functional farming ways work better on poor people, so that rich folk less feel their pressure. If so, as folks get rich they would tend to revert back to the natural-feeling forager ways.
While this hypothesis may seem natural, I must point out that it has a gaping hole: it is far from obvious why the cultural pressures that made foragers act like farmers should weaken when folks get rich. Yes poor farmers may have few other options, while rich folks have the luxury of acting more like foragers. But rich farmers could have instead used their wealth to act like hyper-farmers, moving even further from forager styles. Why exactly did rich farmers act more like foragers?
I wonder if competitive eaters lean more politically conservative or liberal than seemingly-similar individuals?
3. Is the kind of competitive feasting I highlight hyper-farmer or hyper-forager? Well, forager modes of competitive feasting tend to allow high-status individuals to accumulate further status without them accumulating further material control or wealth.
Of course, not all the examples above are the same. In the case of EMT, I suppose it depends on how the social pressures on Harley Morenstein and the other hosts work as they gain more wealth. If it results in a dramatic increase in their personal income, agriculturalist. If it results in the show containing ever larger / more expensive / more dramatically produced meals in such a way that it precludes extraordinary accumulation of wealth by the hosts, forager.
On the other hand, the structure of the feast is more agriculturalist (the “big man” is paying to obtain raw materials up front and people are (essentially) paying him for the result). And pretty much all the distribution of funds is going directly to industrial agriculture. Distribution of actual food isn’t involved.
And no way a forager is going to get their hands on that much bacon per person.
4. Given the low price of many high-calorie food items, excessive food is in many cases very clearly framed as a celebration of “low culture”. It hardly fits in with the “eats a healthier and well-varied” diet that’s the first item in Hanson’s description of foragers. On the other hand, the exaggerated or ironic celebration of low culture is very SWPL.
No idea how to fit that into the farmer norms vs. forager norms framing.
5. Getting back to point 3, countering the accumulation of all wealth in the hands of a few high-status individuals is kind of key if you want to have a stable society. Modern civilization has dealt with this almost entirely by expanding frontiers (or in globalization terms, “developing new markets”). But we’re running kind of short on frontiers at the moment, and the need for labor is lower than ever due to technology.
Arguably, foreign aid programs are a sort of competitive feasting. They redistribute wealth to accumulate status, both of which promote stability. Given the role of food prices in recent revolutions (past and ongoing), that’s not been terribly effective.