36 ms·

Stop Trolling? Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. Actually, everyone does have th

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.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  I'd love to respond, and have, but it seems these days HN doesn't want me to say too much, and for the second time in a week has automatically killed my comment.
  - pbreit 13y ago
    Maybe you should try to make better sense than just being overly critical and insulting?
camdykeman 13y ago
I'd like to point out that I'm as skeptical of Soylent as anyone else, but I'll start from the top. Your synical tone, mocking comments, and blatant insults - based entirely on personal opinion - classify this as trolling. Saying that everyone has access to food/tools/knowledge... i dont think I really need to touch this, Im sure even you realise your error in making this comment. As for storage/transport vs local growing - go grow a sustainable crop during a drought. Grow one in contaminated or depleted soil. Grow one during a war. If you can manage any/all of these things then Soylent is the least of your problems because you've just solved the global food crisis and you're an international hero so you don't need to be bothering me anymore. Overindulgance & Slimfast .... slimfast only demonstrates the validity of portioned drinks as a weight-controller so I'm not sure where you're going here. There is no race to win - find a competetive career and get back to me on this one. Also, just because you choose how to spend you time doesn't mean there is no 'inefficient' or 'wasted' time. Go stare at the wall repeating "gummybears" in your head for the next hour and then tell me all about the value you found in it. Lastly, whats 'abnormal' is saying "I don't get how anyone sees a positive outcome for [40% of people too damn fat for their own good]". Writing off 40% of the population simply because they suffer with food and weight problems. THATS abnormal.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Your synical tone, mocking comments, and blatant insults - Examples of this would be nice. If you want everyone to pat you on the head and tell you how special you are you should stay in grade school. IMO, the Soylent product is a nonsensical endeavor with little chance of real success. I see no reason to pretend that I feel something different about it. Personally, I'm curious as to why you take such offence. Re: growing difficulties: I explained that lack of food is not an issue in my dead-ened comment. There is more than enough food being produced right now for every living person on the planet. The global food crisis is not helped by another form of food, because that was never the issue. slimfast only demonstrates the validity It's dying: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/unilever-s-slim-fast-goes-from-juggernaut-to-afterthought.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/unilever-s-slim-fas... There is no race to win - find a competetive career and get back to me on this one. At some point in life, you'll understand that this is a crazy (and frankly unhealthy and unsustainable) way to live. Writing off 40% of the population Well, good thing that isn't what I said at all, is it? Soylent isn't going to do well because we already have 40% of the population in the US that overindulge their love of food. These people aren't going to stop eating burgers so that they can have a protein shake instead. Ergo, bad business idea. I'm pretty confident in my anti-Soylent stance, given the two major reason I stated above. I see no product and/or company in 5 years here. By all means I encourage them to prove me wrong.

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.
run4yourlives 13y ago
I'd love to respond, and have, but it seems these days HN doesn't want me to say too much, and for the second time in a week has automatically killed my comment.
- pbreit 13y ago
  Maybe you should try to make better sense than just being overly critical and insulting?

camdykeman 13y ago

I'd like to point out that I'm as skeptical of Soylent as anyone else, but I'll start from the top. Your synical tone, mocking comments, and blatant insults - based entirely on personal opinion - classify this as trolling. Saying that everyone has access to food/tools/knowledge... i dont think I really need to touch this, Im sure even you realise your error in making this comment. As for storage/transport vs local growing - go grow a sustainable crop during a drought. Grow one in contaminated or depleted soil. Grow one during a war. If you can manage any/all of these things then Soylent is the least of your problems because you've just solved the global food crisis and you're an international hero so you don't need to be bothering me anymore. Overindulgance & Slimfast .... slimfast only demonstrates the validity of portioned drinks as a weight-controller so I'm not sure where you're going here. There is no race to win - find a competetive career and get back to me on this one. Also, just because you choose how to spend you time doesn't mean there is no 'inefficient' or 'wasted' time. Go stare at the wall repeating "gummybears" in your head for the next hour and then tell me all about the value you found in it. Lastly, whats 'abnormal' is saying "I don't get how anyone sees a positive outcome for [40% of people too damn fat for their own good]". Writing off 40% of the population simply because they suffer with food and weight problems. THATS abnormal.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Your synical tone, mocking comments, and blatant insults - Examples of this would be nice. If you want everyone to pat you on the head and tell you how special you are you should stay in grade school. IMO, the Soylent product is a nonsensical endeavor with little chance of real success. I see no reason to pretend that I feel something different about it. Personally, I'm curious as to why you take such offence. Re: growing difficulties: I explained that lack of food is not an issue in my dead-ened comment. There is more than enough food being produced right now for every living person on the planet. The global food crisis is not helped by another form of food, because that was never the issue. slimfast only demonstrates the validity It's dying: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/unilever-s-slim-fast-goes-from-juggernaut-to-afterthought.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/unilever-s-slim-fas... There is no race to win - find a competetive career and get back to me on this one. At some point in life, you'll understand that this is a crazy (and frankly unhealthy and unsustainable) way to live. Writing off 40% of the population Well, good thing that isn't what I said at all, is it? Soylent isn't going to do well because we already have 40% of the population in the US that overindulge their love of food. These people aren't going to stop eating burgers so that they can have a protein shake instead. Ergo, bad business idea. I'm pretty confident in my anti-Soylent stance, given the two major reason I stated above. I see no product and/or company in 5 years here. By all means I encourage them to prove me wrong.