Would you still cook if you diddn't have to?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I realized when I started this thread that it was ambiguous.  You might no longer have to cook because you no longer need to eat, or you may no longer cook because someone else does the cooking for you.  I must confess that I can go both ways on both.  I love food, but there are times that it's inconvenient, and you'd rather just not bother.  And if you could restrict your diet suitably, you could afford better stuff to eat.  If I didn't eat three times a day, I'd have more to buy filet mignon with.  And while there are times that I just wish a good meal would magically appear, there are other times when I really enjoy the adventure and the process of discovery.  Of course, if someone were to pay for a live-in chef to cook for me every day, I certainly wouldn't object.  So there is both good and bad, even once one decides which question we're talking about.

I took your question as an economic one. Between going to restaurants and food delivery, we have the wherewithal for me to never have to cook again. As it is, we dine out 2-3 times a week.

Boru