3 ms·

>So? Once you add feedback (blood tests, medical supervision) to your dietary "loop", these mistakes have the potential to sort themselves out. except the ones

by nemof 13y ago

>So? Once you add feedback (blood tests, medical supervision) to your dietary "loop", these mistakes have the potential to sort themselves out. except the ones that take years to present, and are things that we don't necessarily understand well yet. >Some people's health is at risk simply by maintaining their normal eating habits. Just because people have bad nutritional habits doesn't mean that soylent is the answer. Surely better education and a redistribution of farm subsidies to nudge people towards healthier lifestyles is a more complete and safe route? But yeah, soylent does allow people to feel that sense of achievement of playing armchair scientists. >What ethical problem? Don't participate if you don't like the terms. It is not as though the stuff is being tested on schoolchildren, or anyone who is unwilling. There is an assumption amongst educated and knowledgeable people that others are equally so. Some of the people who participate in the soylent trials wont be knowledgeable enough to be able to make good meaningful decisions about what they put in their bodies. Sure, it's their choice, hell they can suck lead paint off walls if that's their thing, but the whole point of food and supplement laws and safety regs is to prevent people doing themselves harm, particularly when they are not themselves cognisant of the harm they might do. Add to that the hubris of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be cautious, and something is going to go terribly wrong eventually. Perhaps not for the originator of the idea, but certainly one or several of the participants.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
>except the ones that take years to present, and are things that we don't necessarily understand well yet. This problem is not also not currently addressed by standard dietary practice. >Just because people have bad nutritional habits doesn't mean that soylent is the answer. Okay, don't participate. Or wait and see. Or seek out some expert you trust. >Surely better education Never hurts > and a redistribution of farm subsidies No point in arguing that the Nanny State can't do a better job. It can and should. Is that Rhinehart's responsibility? Or is it even within the set of things that an individual could affect? > to nudge people towards healthier lifestyles is a more complete and safe route? Government intervention hasn't worked well yet. It is anybody's guess as to how much better/worse it could be. >But yeah, soylent does allow people to feel that sense of achievement of playing armchair scientists. Some people do like control of their lives. For some people, any action, even though there is potential for harm, is better than inaction. >There is an assumption amongst educated and knowledgeable people that others are equally so. Other people are free to do as they wish, so long as they don't bother me. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins >Some of the people who participate in the soylent trials wont be knowledgeable enough to be able to make good meaningful decisions about what they put in their bodies. Their mamas ought to have taught them better. >Sure, it's their choice, hell they can suck lead paint off walls if that's their thing, But, you've just been arguing that someone ought to save them from themselves! > but the whole point of food and supplement laws and safety regs is to prevent people doing themselves harm, particularly when they are not themselves cognisant of the harm they might do. Is it? Maybe that was the point, that's certainly the way it gets sold to us. Would you argue that those laws and regs are particularly effective to that end? >Add to that the hubris of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be cautious, and something is going to go terribly wrong eventually. Perhaps not for the originator of the idea, but certainly one or several of the participants. How many? Half? A quarter? A percent? Less than that? People makes similar policy compromises all the time, the gov't does it for us too. None of these people are abandoning medicine, they will get medical checkups (if they don't, they really are fools!) It obviously isn't acutely poisonous, people who don't react well will either discontinue, or consult a physician. I bet most will abandon drinking goop even absent any negative outcome.

by nemof 13y ago

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

>except the ones that take years to present, and are things that we don't necessarily understand well yet. This problem is not also not currently addressed by standard dietary practice. >Just because people have bad nutritional habits doesn't mean that soylent is the answer. Okay, don't participate. Or wait and see. Or seek out some expert you trust. >Surely better education Never hurts > and a redistribution of farm subsidies No point in arguing that the Nanny State can't do a better job. It can and should. Is that Rhinehart's responsibility? Or is it even within the set of things that an individual could affect? > to nudge people towards healthier lifestyles is a more complete and safe route? Government intervention hasn't worked well yet. It is anybody's guess as to how much better/worse it could be. >But yeah, soylent does allow people to feel that sense of achievement of playing armchair scientists. Some people do like control of their lives. For some people, any action, even though there is potential for harm, is better than inaction. >There is an assumption amongst educated and knowledgeable people that others are equally so. Other people are free to do as they wish, so long as they don't bother me. Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins >Some of the people who participate in the soylent trials wont be knowledgeable enough to be able to make good meaningful decisions about what they put in their bodies. Their mamas ought to have taught them better. >Sure, it's their choice, hell they can suck lead paint off walls if that's their thing, But, you've just been arguing that someone ought to save them from themselves! > but the whole point of food and supplement laws and safety regs is to prevent people doing themselves harm, particularly when they are not themselves cognisant of the harm they might do. Is it? Maybe that was the point, that's certainly the way it gets sold to us. Would you argue that those laws and regs are particularly effective to that end? >Add to that the hubris of those who know just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to be cautious, and something is going to go terribly wrong eventually. Perhaps not for the originator of the idea, but certainly one or several of the participants. How many? Half? A quarter? A percent? Less than that? People makes similar policy compromises all the time, the gov't does it for us too. None of these people are abandoning medicine, they will get medical checkups (if they don't, they really are fools!) It obviously isn't acutely poisonous, people who don't react well will either discontinue, or consult a physician. I bet most will abandon drinking goop even absent any negative outcome.