4 ms·

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

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?
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    I'm curious as to how I'm being insulting when the other commenter was the one calling me a troll. Not pumping the latest SV (or YC backed, for that matter) fad is not being "overly critical and insulting". Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      You and Camdykeman should re-read the HN guide for new users pages. Things like this: > Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking. Are a good example of what not to say.
DanBC 13y ago
> 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? That isn't what they said. > 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. It already exists. The World Food Programme already has it. Soylent isn't doing anything new. Open Source Soylent isn't doing anything new. Here's a list of the different feeds the WFP uses (http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp255508.pdf http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...) (https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition) (https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products) (http://www.irinnews.org/report/83124/malawi-cheaper-recipe-for-treating-hungry-children http://www.irinnews.org/report/83124/malawi-cheaper-recipe-f...) Notice that Soylent needs to be mixed with water. Clean water isn't easily available in many areas, so I'm not sure if Soylent are aware of that.
jljljl 13y ago
Soylent.me is selling a month supply of soylent for $270 (International). That requires a wage of $9 per day, which is well above the $1 per day poverty limit. On an annual basis, that comes down to $3,240 per day, more than the per capita GDP of some of the countries outside the US to which you are likely referring [1]. What about at scale? A 14 oz. tin of Ensure powder costs $9 at Walmart [2]. It provides 7 servings, which comes out to $1.29 per meal or $3.30 per day. Cheaper, but still not quite there - It would need to sell for < 1/3 retail price to feed those living in poverty[3]. I'm sure it's possible to supply Ensure/Soylent at a sufficient price, especially if you subsidize it heavily through government programs or charity. But this of course get's into the distribution and logistical problems that really plague attempts to solve food shortages through clever solutions. This also ignores the potential negative economic and political impacts of making entire countries reliant on a food product distributed to their people through an outside agency. All this is to say, I do not think this is as clear cut a solution as you are pointing out. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... [2] http://www.walmart.com/ip/Ensure-R-Powder-Vanilla-14-oz-can/17177433?findingMethod=rr http://www.walmart.com/ip/Ensure-R-Powder-Vanilla-14-oz-can/... [3] I know using Walmart's price isn't a perfect analysis, but I needed a quick reference to frame the conversation

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?
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  I'm curious as to how I'm being insulting when the other commenter was the one calling me a troll. Not pumping the latest SV (or YC backed, for that matter) fad is not being "overly critical and insulting". Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You and Camdykeman should re-read the HN guide for new users pages. Things like this: > Stop drinking the Kool Aid without thinking. Are a good example of what not to say.

DanBC 13y ago

> 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? That isn't what they said. > 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. It already exists. The World Food Programme already has it. Soylent isn't doing anything new. Open Source Soylent isn't doing anything new. Here's a list of the different feeds the WFP uses (http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp255508.pdf http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...) (https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition) (https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products) (http://www.irinnews.org/report/83124/malawi-cheaper-recipe-for-treating-hungry-children http://www.irinnews.org/report/83124/malawi-cheaper-recipe-f...) Notice that Soylent needs to be mixed with water. Clean water isn't easily available in many areas, so I'm not sure if Soylent are aware of that.

jljljl 13y ago

Soylent.me is selling a month supply of soylent for $270 (International). That requires a wage of $9 per day, which is well above the $1 per day poverty limit. On an annual basis, that comes down to $3,240 per day, more than the per capita GDP of some of the countries outside the US to which you are likely referring [1]. What about at scale? A 14 oz. tin of Ensure powder costs $9 at Walmart [2]. It provides 7 servings, which comes out to $1.29 per meal or $3.30 per day. Cheaper, but still not quite there - It would need to sell for < 1/3 retail price to feed those living in poverty[3]. I'm sure it's possible to supply Ensure/Soylent at a sufficient price, especially if you subsidize it heavily through government programs or charity. But this of course get's into the distribution and logistical problems that really plague attempts to solve food shortages through clever solutions. This also ignores the potential negative economic and political impacts of making entire countries reliant on a food product distributed to their people through an outside agency. All this is to say, I do not think this is as clear cut a solution as you are pointing out. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin... [2] http://www.walmart.com/ip/Ensure-R-Powder-Vanilla-14-oz-can/17177433?findingMethod=rr http://www.walmart.com/ip/Ensure-R-Powder-Vanilla-14-oz-can/... [3] I know using Walmart's price isn't a perfect analysis, but I needed a quick reference to frame the conversation