4 ms·

Its not about whether you "like food" or not. • Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet.

Its not about whether you "like food" or not. • Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. • The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well. • Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. Your analogy of sex would be more appropriate if you made it analogous to sleep. Many people out there love to sleep. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time, nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Soylet is flawed, but subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face makes you as ignorant as those "40% of people too damn fat for their own good" that you so readily attack, it just means you have a better control mechanism. Stop trolling.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Stop Trolling? Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue. The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well Thankfully, over the last 20,000 years we've learned to live of the things around us, like animals and plants. I don't understand this argument. There is no requirement for food to be distributed over vast distances and times. The fact that we choose to do this is a societal choice. Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. So? The already have things like Slimfast for these people. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time Life is about living, not being efficient. However you choose to spend your time is the best use of your time. There is no race to win. nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Are you honestly suggesting that Soylent is better for someone than a proper meal? You better have a pretty long list of peer reviewed research to back that statement up if you are. subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face Enjoying food is not "stuffing your face". Perhaps if this is what your relationship with food is I can see the appeal. That's abnormal though.
- trcollinson 13y ago
  Wow, I'm sorry but do you really believe this statement: "Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue." Are you trying to say you have not met any person, ever, who does not have the money or ability to find good, wholesome foods? There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. There are a number of people who live on fair less than "chocolate and potato chips". I have no idea whether this recipe is a good idea or not. I believe it should be tested and peer reviewed by professionals. However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. You sound very short sided here.
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    > There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. Often due to policies of the US or other imperialist nations.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. No, it would not. All you have done here is display your ignorance of why people around the world are starving. First, let me separate two distinct categories of person that you use in your comment. On one hand we have the average western lower income person. On the other, we have a "truly poor" third world person that is either on the brink of starvation or whom a proper diet is not guaranteed. I'll tackle the latter first. To suggest that there is less food produced than is needed to eat globally is simply false. Food production has outpaced population growth. We have more food now (per person) that we have ever had in our history. So, introducing a new food to market is solving a problem that does not exist. Food security is a political problem, not a scientific one. As to the former, I'd venture that there there aren't any western adults that don't at least understand that daily McDonald's along with a sedentary lifestyle is not a healthy option. The issue here isn't access, it's personal choice. Buying fast, crappy food is not cheaper than buying wholesome raw ingredients and then taking the time to prepare them. This issue isn't addressed by introducing a powder to encourage the same behaviours that fast food supports. Personal change is just that - change. Nobody is saving the world here. What Soylent is really is nothing more than extended mental masturbation, of little utility to the masses. Don't convince yourself otherwise.
DiegoNolan 13y ago
I could and would argue that sleeping is a good use of time.
- camdykeman 13y ago
  So if starting tomorrow, you knew that your body only required you to sleep for one hour a night to maintain and repair itself instead of 7-8 you would continue sleeping 7-8 simply because you think its a good use of time? I doubt it. You might still lay around in bed on your days off, or you might stay in bed to procrastinate when faced with something to do that day, but arguing that it would still be a good use of time is extremely flawed.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Most people genuinely would like to stay in bed for 8 hours a night, even if a safe, effective, NO_SLEEP_PILL was released that allowed your body to safely get by on just an hours sleep per night. Sometimes people would chose to sleep less - crunching work, or partying, or whatever. But mostly I really think people like that time.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      I get on average about 5 hours of sleep per night. I would very much like a NO_SLEEP_PILL that made that (or even less) sleep enough for my body. I would not wish to be laying in bed for 8 hours a night if not required to function. I would be using that time to do other things. I also believe my wife is in the same mind set. I know that I'm speaking of a sample of just 1 (or 2 if you count my wife) so that isn't enough to go against your "most people" idea.

run4yourlives 13y ago

Stop Trolling? Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue. The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well Thankfully, over the last 20,000 years we've learned to live of the things around us, like animals and plants. I don't understand this argument. There is no requirement for food to be distributed over vast distances and times. The fact that we choose to do this is a societal choice. Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. So? The already have things like Slimfast for these people. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time Life is about living, not being efficient. However you choose to spend your time is the best use of your time. There is no race to win. nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Are you honestly suggesting that Soylent is better for someone than a proper meal? You better have a pretty long list of peer reviewed research to back that statement up if you are. subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face Enjoying food is not "stuffing your face". Perhaps if this is what your relationship with food is I can see the appeal. That's abnormal though.

trcollinson 13y ago
Wow, I'm sorry but do you really believe this statement: "Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue." Are you trying to say you have not met any person, ever, who does not have the money or ability to find good, wholesome foods? There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. There are a number of people who live on fair less than "chocolate and potato chips". I have no idea whether this recipe is a good idea or not. I believe it should be tested and peer reviewed by professionals. However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. You sound very short sided here.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  > There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. Often due to policies of the US or other imperialist nations.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. No, it would not. All you have done here is display your ignorance of why people around the world are starving. First, let me separate two distinct categories of person that you use in your comment. On one hand we have the average western lower income person. On the other, we have a "truly poor" third world person that is either on the brink of starvation or whom a proper diet is not guaranteed. I'll tackle the latter first. To suggest that there is less food produced than is needed to eat globally is simply false. Food production has outpaced population growth. We have more food now (per person) that we have ever had in our history. So, introducing a new food to market is solving a problem that does not exist. Food security is a political problem, not a scientific one. As to the former, I'd venture that there there aren't any western adults that don't at least understand that daily McDonald's along with a sedentary lifestyle is not a healthy option. The issue here isn't access, it's personal choice. Buying fast, crappy food is not cheaper than buying wholesome raw ingredients and then taking the time to prepare them. This issue isn't addressed by introducing a powder to encourage the same behaviours that fast food supports. Personal change is just that - change. Nobody is saving the world here. What Soylent is really is nothing more than extended mental masturbation, of little utility to the masses. Don't convince yourself otherwise.

DiegoNolan 13y ago

I could and would argue that sleeping is a good use of time.

camdykeman 13y ago
So if starting tomorrow, you knew that your body only required you to sleep for one hour a night to maintain and repair itself instead of 7-8 you would continue sleeping 7-8 simply because you think its a good use of time? I doubt it. You might still lay around in bed on your days off, or you might stay in bed to procrastinate when faced with something to do that day, but arguing that it would still be a good use of time is extremely flawed.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Most people genuinely would like to stay in bed for 8 hours a night, even if a safe, effective, NO_SLEEP_PILL was released that allowed your body to safely get by on just an hours sleep per night. Sometimes people would chose to sleep less - crunching work, or partying, or whatever. But mostly I really think people like that time.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    I get on average about 5 hours of sleep per night. I would very much like a NO_SLEEP_PILL that made that (or even less) sleep enough for my body. I would not wish to be laying in bed for 8 hours a night if not required to function. I would be using that time to do other things. I also believe my wife is in the same mind set. I know that I'm speaking of a sample of just 1 (or 2 if you count my wife) so that isn't enough to go against your "most people" idea.