3 ms·

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

by 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.....).
      - foobarqux 13y ago
        Mono-nutrition is known to have negative health effects. And there is clear evidence of trial-and-error that has resulted in short-term health effects due to initial versions of Soylent. Longer term effects would not have been identified and so remain a very high risk. From wikipedia: Modifications to the ingredient list have occurred in response to results incurred in testing, for example: the first version of the formula omitted iron, which caused Rhineheart to report his heart had begun to race.[8] In other early experiments, intentionally induced overdoses of potassium and magnesium gave Rhinehart cardiac arrhythmia and burning sensations.[8] After the early recipe had stabilized, Rhinehart found himself suffering from joint pain due to a sulfur deficiency. Methylsulfonylmethane was added to address this problem
      - kayoone 13y ago
        the human body can adapt to bad nutrition for a long time. Everything will be fine until its not. What if Soylent increases the risk of some form of cancer or some long term damage to the liver of other organs ? You wont know until its too late. You want people to prove that Soylent is bad, but instead the Soylent team needs to proof that Soylent is good! And a couple of dozen reviews from people using it for a month does not prove anything.
  - nollidge 13y ago
    > The risk here is minimal. How do you know that?

by lowboy 13y ago

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.....).
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      Mono-nutrition is known to have negative health effects. And there is clear evidence of trial-and-error that has resulted in short-term health effects due to initial versions of Soylent. Longer term effects would not have been identified and so remain a very high risk. From wikipedia: Modifications to the ingredient list have occurred in response to results incurred in testing, for example: the first version of the formula omitted iron, which caused Rhineheart to report his heart had begun to race.[8] In other early experiments, intentionally induced overdoses of potassium and magnesium gave Rhinehart cardiac arrhythmia and burning sensations.[8] After the early recipe had stabilized, Rhinehart found himself suffering from joint pain due to a sulfur deficiency. Methylsulfonylmethane was added to address this problem
    - kayoone 13y ago
      the human body can adapt to bad nutrition for a long time. Everything will be fine until its not. What if Soylent increases the risk of some form of cancer or some long term damage to the liver of other organs ? You wont know until its too late. You want people to prove that Soylent is bad, but instead the Soylent team needs to proof that Soylent is good! And a couple of dozen reviews from people using it for a month does not prove anything.
- nollidge 13y ago
  > The risk here is minimal. How do you know that?