I'm confused, are you saying this in support of Soylent? If so, it's right up there with this quote from the article: > We do not yet know what the ideal diet

I'm confused, are you saying this in support of Soylent? If so, it's right up there with this quote from the article: > We do not yet know what the ideal diet for a human is, but our present understanding permits us to easily design a diet that is far superior to what most people are eating. If your bar for quality and benefits is the existing food industry then you've already massively failed. The existing food industry, especially in America is completely fucked. Of course you can trivially manufacture a healthier diet than what most people eat, because most people eat a lot of industrially processed foods engineered to fool your senses and get you addicted so that they can sell you more over-priced rehashed versions of the same subsidized farm grains at an obscenely profitable markup. That's not evidence that we are anywhere near having a clue how to manufacture an ideal diet from raw chemicals. The fact that he keeps painting this picture that diet is just a list of chemicals and pays no attention to how the body metabolize is dangerously reductive. Animal metabolism is nowhere near as simple as the simple and isolated chemistry and physics on which he bases his reasoning. When anyone raises these issues he sticks his fingers in his ears hand-waves it away with accusations that people want him to fail for pseudo-religious emotional reasons. Well, I for one don't want him to fail, the goal is noble and could be widely beneficial. However it will never be achieved by someone who is so willfully ignorant about the complexity of the problem he is facing.