3 ms·
I think that the downvoting is more likely tied to your outlandishly wild claims as fact of both cricket usage in Soylent and that the government will force con
by publicfig 10y ago
I think that the downvoting is more likely tied to your outlandishly wild claims as fact of both cricket usage in Soylent and that the government will force consumption of it. Neither of those claims are at all verifiable or likely within any basis of reality.
- harveywi 10y agoWhat is wrong with reasonable speculation? You just speculated about why I was downvoted.
- st3v3r 10y agoNothing in your post was close to reasonable.
- harveywi 10y agoJust because an idea makes one uncomfortable ("eating sludge", "efficient and sustainable nutrition impacting public policy", etc.) does not make it unreasonable, least of all unreasonable for discussion. The opposite should be true.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- st3v3r 10y agoNo, the idea that the government is going to make it mandatory. That alone is looney enough to make the rest of your post unreasonable for discussion.
- PeterisP 10y agoIf your post contained "might" instead of "will", then it would be reasonable speculation, but as currently written it's an unreasonable assertion. For example, since Soylent explicitly aims to keep the product vegan, including cricket protein is unlikely even if nutrition and economic reasons are not a concern.