Why are passions not critical? Also what would we define as critical? People have been kept alive with IV only diets. So in that case food would not be critical either.
Nobody really needs food (or food-culture) to be kept alive. Food is just a substance we need to enjoy the rest of the important things ;)
Maslow's hierarchy is discredited but it works enough for this simple model. I feel I explained this well enough. If I struggle to keep paying rent (housing and security, the second layer), why would I place my passions, my esteem 2 levels up, over that?
It's possible to be happy and homeless, but not likely. I can't dance well if I'm hungry on the streets.
>Nobody really needs food (or food-culture) to be kept alive
Your biology disagrees, but I wish you the best of luck.
Food culture is the third level, belonging. I'd say it's more critical than your passions, but that's definitely where the pyramid starts to get hazy (hence the discreditation). You can argue a dance culture, but everyone eats food. Not everyone dances.
You can move without dancing. Dancing is a social feature, not a biological one. Dancing is efficient as a physical activity and a physical exercise but not critical. Food is critical. Dancing with food scarcity is just a waste of vital calories to survive.
Very confused on how so many are arguing that dancing is more important than basic energy. Guess it shows who has really struggled in life.
Everyone is going to have passions. Passions aren't critical. And dancing with someone you see once at a Meetup who never shows up again isn't how you make a community.
Eating is critical. Everyone needs food. That's why cultures and subcultures all have their unique cuisine. When you eat in a group it's almost inevitable that socialization happens. You gotta delineate from micro (you) and macro (the entire community) factors. No one's saying you cannot dance.