5 ms·

Ah. 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

by lowboy 13y ago

Ah. 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 ago
Stronger: more harmful than many irresponsible diets e.g. McJunk, fat, sugar?
- jlgreco 13y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683
jlgreco 13y ago
This 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 ago
  Going 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 ago
    Back 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 ago
      It'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.
        lowboy 13y ago
        That's the thing, absent any negative information a dietary change shouldn't need rigourous proof. Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress. If it doesn't work for them, then they can stop using it. How hard is that? How is that breaking anyone? I don't treat human life lightly. You're just treating a dietary change too heavily. > It's like what I'm saying is going in one ear and coming out the other. I was just about to say the same of you. I'm done here.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        > Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress. You are demonstrating a very basic failure to analyze risk, understand the variety of medical risks that can be posed by experimental diets, and indeed understand the concerns that other people are raising (the concern is not that you will die after drinking it three times in a row.....).

by lowboy 13y ago

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Stronger: more harmful than many irresponsible diets e.g. McJunk, fat, sugar?

jlgreco 13y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6720683

jlgreco 13y ago

This 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 ago
Going 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 ago
  Back 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 ago
    It'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.
      - lowboy 13y ago
        That's the thing, absent any negative information a dietary change shouldn't need rigourous proof. Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress. If it doesn't work for them, then they can stop using it. How hard is that? How is that breaking anyone? I don't treat human life lightly. You're just treating a dietary change too heavily. > It's like what I'm saying is going in one ear and coming out the other. I was just about to say the same of you. I'm done here.
        jlgreco 13y ago
        > Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress. You are demonstrating a very basic failure to analyze risk, understand the variety of medical risks that can be posed by experimental diets, and indeed understand the concerns that other people are raising (the concern is not that you will die after drinking it three times in a row.....).