3 ms·
You have failed to understand the analogy. Hitting things with a wrench is how I fix things. Hitting things with a wrench is not analogous to eating Soylent,
by jlgreco 13y ago
You have failed to understand the analogy. Hitting things with a wrench is how I fix things. Hitting things with a wrench is not analogous to eating Soylent, hitting things with a wrench is analogous to the medical care required when you break yourself.
The fear is that Soylent, used as hyped, has the potential to break a human.
Breaking yourself, or much worse, others, is a far more serious than breaking a machine. That sort of relaxed attitude towards health is exactly why I would not trust a product like this from people like this.
Soylent really should not be banking on "it is difficult to kill a human", and neither should you.
- lowboy 13y agoAh. That wasn't very clear in your comment. Yes, breaking humans is bad. Is there any indication that Soylent is going to break people though? As far as I can tell, it's unknown what the long term effects will be, but we have some evidence that it should be just fine. Do you have any evidence that points to Soylent being harmful?
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoStronger: more harmful than many irresponsible diets e.g. McJunk, fat, sugar?
- jlgreco 13y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683
- jlgreco 13y agoThis is exactly the relaxed attitude I am talking about. Soylent, used as hyped, should not need to be proved hazardous. Soylent, used as hyped, should be shown to be safe.
- lowboy 13y agoGoing back to lawnmowers, it would be like not wrapping the handle with leather for comfort because we can't prove that it's safe for the lawnmower. We think it's safe, we're pretty sure from our understanding that it's safe, but we can't prove it. I say give it a try. Let's wrap the handle, observe in operation, and then react when we have more data.
- jlgreco 13y agoBack to your hyper-relaxed "the human body is no more complicated or serious than a machine" thing? I can't believe I have not made myself clear on this already, but I'll give it one more go: You can fuck around with lawn mowers because breaking one typically doesn't fucking kill somebody. If you break your fucking lawnmower, you buy a new one. You don't get to buy another human. Such a lazy attitude towards human safety is positively chilling. Have you learned absolutely nothing from the horrors seen over past centuries of people treating human lives like any other test subject?
- lowboy 13y agoIt's only a problem if it harms a human suddenly and irreversibly. I'm guessing that anyone who was suffering problems from a dietary change would have time to correct. Show me some evidence or even some indication that Soylent will result in an irreversible and sudden decline in health. I'm guessing that you won't, or can't. Your argument is "We don't know, so let's not risk it". The risk here is minimal. If it fails to live up to the hype, it's reversible.
- jlgreco 13y ago> Show me some evidence or even some indication that Soylent will result in an irreversible and sudden decline in health. > If it fails to live up to the hype, it's reversible. Once again, demanding evidence that something is unsafe instead of providing evidence that it is not, then in the same breath taking that it is not for granted. Is that all you are wired to do? It's like what I'm saying is going in one ear and coming out the other.