4 ms·

Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful th

Yeah, meat/food substitutes are likely central to our population growth rate, but let's be intellectually honest. I'm not sure it'll work. I'm really hopeful the meat substitutes will pan out. We haven't figured out cancer yet. You're betting on us figuring out food? Edit: because cancer is complex, the same a food and nutrition

chaostheory 9y ago
> You're betting on us figuring out food? Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.
- deeth_starr_v 9y ago
  I'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet". I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know. Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.
  - derefr 9y ago
    People have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives? Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.
    - iopq 9y ago
      Those peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  >it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable... But, is it? The ingredients include oats, grapeseed oil, soy derivates, and whey. I'm sincerely having trouble seeing how this represents more efficient food production. In fact, it would seem to be less efficient from that perspective: it still requires the resources for crops/farming, derives isolates from foods that are otherwise more whole (what happens to the rest?), then adds a degree of processing that requires still more resources. Isn't it more efficient to just eat whole foods rather than extracts from various foods that, by definition, require energy/processing to obtain and must leave some waste in the process? Maybe it's more convenient from the consumer's perspective, but I don't see how it solves the production problems you suggest.
  - iopq 9y ago
    Well, for example, you shouldn't eat soy derivatives that haven't been processed. This is why fermented soy products have been popular - they are more easily digested by humans. Raw soybeans are actually toxic.
    - unclebucknasty 9y ago
      Yeah, that's a different topic.

chaostheory 9y ago

> You're betting on us figuring out food? Things like Soylent are already here. It's not vaporware. Yes it's not perfect or ideal but it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable for a growing population.

deeth_starr_v 9y ago
I'm not calling it vaporware. We don't understand clearly about our gut bio/digestion/food absorption. It'd be great to hear an expert on this chime in, but my guess they would say "we don't know yet". I'm not telling you to not eat Soylent or that it won't potentially be great for the human race. But again, we don't know. Edit: fixed wording Edit: What if they get something wrong like including trans fats? I know this a "playing to fear" argument, but there is a long history of industrial foods being not healthy. It just takes a new generation of suckers to come of age.
- derefr 9y ago
  People have been eating imperfectly for millenia and keeping on nevertheless. How many billion (trillion?) Chinese peasants, across history, do you think ate only rice their entire lives? Sure, said peasants probably had vitamin A deficiency—but they managed to live long, mostly-healthy lives despite that. Which is my point: we don't need to get "food" perfect in order to ensure that 10x as many people as today can live "long, mostly-healthy lives." It's not unethical to feed starving people food that's missing some micronutrient we aren't yet aware of, because they'll still be better off than if they were starving. The human body is hardy.
  - iopq 9y ago
    Those peasants also ate a lot of vegetables because they couldn't afford meat. Vegetables that have beta-carotene, like bok choy.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
>it's an answer to really inefficient food production whose water and nutrient needs aren't sustainable... But, is it? The ingredients include oats, grapeseed oil, soy derivates, and whey. I'm sincerely having trouble seeing how this represents more efficient food production. In fact, it would seem to be less efficient from that perspective: it still requires the resources for crops/farming, derives isolates from foods that are otherwise more whole (what happens to the rest?), then adds a degree of processing that requires still more resources. Isn't it more efficient to just eat whole foods rather than extracts from various foods that, by definition, require energy/processing to obtain and must leave some waste in the process? Maybe it's more convenient from the consumer's perspective, but I don't see how it solves the production problems you suggest.
- iopq 9y ago
  Well, for example, you shouldn't eat soy derivatives that haven't been processed. This is why fermented soy products have been popular - they are more easily digested by humans. Raw soybeans are actually toxic.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    Yeah, that's a different topic.