The article makes a very simple point: some things are not worth disrupting - as in fundamentally changing/optimizing/modernizing - and sometime the disruption

The article makes a very simple point: some things are not worth disrupting - as in fundamentally changing/optimizing/modernizing - and sometime the disruption can make things much worse. Food is an example of that. The 50-80s saw huge disruption of the food business and it had dramatically bad side effects (e.g., obesity in the US). Perpetuating that today doesn't sound like a great benefit to society. I believe it's a worthwhile subject, simply illustrated by the article. The overwhelming "The author doesn't get the point of Soylent" reaction here tells me that most people actually don't get the gist of the article itself: it's not about Soylent in particular, it's about (food) disruption.