The middlebrow objection is not that it's somehow dangerous, but that it's not new or unique or worth getting excited over. It's just another meal-replacement

The middlebrow objection is not that it's somehow dangerous, but that it's not new or unique or worth getting excited over. It's just another meal-replacement shake, just marketed to a different group. I'm sure that if you use it sensibly. ("a shake for breakfast, a shake for lunch, then a sensible dinner" as the ultra slim-fast guy would say.) it won't hurt you. I mean, as long as the stuff isn't actively and aggressively poisonous, and as long as you get lawyers or something to mealy mouth your way out of the claims that you can live entirely on soylent, you are fine. I guess... that's not really all that much of an objection, from a business perspective. With all this hype, I'd say it has a reasonable chance of making money. It does seem to be marketed well, and it's timed right But, I think most of the 'middlebrow dismissals' are more a response to the hype. I mean, meal-replacement shakes are an old product; certainly at first glance, if you dismiss the fantastic claims about soylent, like the idea that you can eat it and nothing else, it looks a lot like any other meal-replacement shake packaged for a particular market. The problem is that the group they are targeting, generally speaking, identifies as more skeptical than most, and they are using the traditional snake-oil style pitch that you normally use to get a product off the ground. On an emotional level, I (and I think many in their target demographic) find that pretty offensive[1]. I think that negative emotional response to obvious hype is the core of the resistance you see here. [1]or rather, responding positively to something sold using overly-enthusiastic sales techniques would... conflict with my self-image.