7 ms·

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in m

Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying. Studies show that families that dine together stay together [1]. Their children are healthier and get better grades. It also lowers the risk of weight problems and alcohol and substance abuse.[2] Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating. [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/family-dinner-adolescent-benefits/2010731/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/24/family-... [2] http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/family-dinners-are-important http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/family-dinners-a... EDIT: I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track.

aero142 13y ago
No one eats every meal with their family, and people who switch to Soylent for every meal are doing so for the interesting story and proof that Soylent, at least in the short term, is not harmful and is complete. The fact that eating together with friends or family is great has very little to do with Soylent.
vertr07 13y ago
You don't have to eat it all the time. There's no contract, really.
XorNot 13y ago
People keeping bringing this up. What is so difficult about the concept that not everyone wants to, or even can, cook meals that are nutritionally suitable, healthy or even intended to be consumed collectively - all the time?
- smspence 13y ago
  Because on the internet, and especially in internet comments, the world only exists in black and white. Something is either 100% true for everyone everywhere at all times without exception, or it is 100% false. There is no middle ground, and no shades of gray. Ever.
  - markeganfuller 13y ago
    And definitely not 50 of them. </sarcasm>
- fleitz 13y ago
  Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway. Soylent appeals to exactly those people. If we wanted to live like this we'd just buy a bag of rice and a box of vitamins. We all understand that it's technically possible to use soylent, just that like replacing all your friends with Facebook, or riding a segway, it's social suicide.
  - cenhyperion 13y ago
    >it's social suicide Unless your social life is at a deeper level than simply putting food in your mouth around certain people. Either way, I don't think many people would _replace_ food with Soylent so much as they would drink it instead of eating some meals. I'd love to just drink a glass of liquid instead of preparing and eating a lunch.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      Why don't you have a case of Ensure already then?
  - Tehnix 13y ago
    >Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway. or, and hold on, not everyone lives with other people (like, say, students etc) and cooking a meal just for yourself is time consuming and requires you have the energy to do so. That says nothing about your social life whatever, but, replacing friends on with facebook does. Soylent is in no way social suicide. Even if I wanted to replace my diet 100% with Soylent, that'd have little implication on my already thriving social life, because, you know, I don't only socialize over dinner, there are actual other things to do...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jimmar 13y ago
I cook breakfast for my kids every morning. We eat together every night. For lunch, I'm at work and I typically microwave some junk and get on with more important things. For me, it'd be nice to have another solution for the mid-day meal. So, I've bought in for a trial. I'm not expecting it to be a 100% replacement for regular food. My hunch is that most people will not replace 100% of their food with soylent.
- lambda 13y ago
  Why don't you just buy Ensure or Carnation Instant Breakfast? They already exist and are well known, that you can buy anywhere. Or make yourself a bowl of oatmeal. Or eat leftovers from the night before. I think that the only reason that anyone's interested in Soylent is the current startup/crowdfunding bubble hype, not because it's actually anything particularly new. Soylent is to Ensure as Groupon is to coupons. Before the hype, on select groups (people who were too sick to eat, middle-aged housewives) would be into each of them, but once you add the startup/crowdfunding/Internet angle, all of a sudden a bunch of 20 somethings take a fascination in something that they otherwise would have sneered at.
  - gfodor 13y ago
    Ensure tastes like shit. If Soylent tastes reasonably OK, and has stronger guarantees that it can be a true meal replacement than supplements like Ensure, then sign me up.
    - SamuelMulder 13y ago
      Main comments in the original video about taste were that it was pretty nasty. Also smells bad.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > Ensure tastes like shit. What, all different flavours of Ensure? All different styles of Ensure? > supplements like Ensure, Ensure is a sole source of nutrition. Your ignorance about the product speaks volumes.
tehwalrus 13y ago
Correlation/causation - dining together doesn't cause all those benefits, it is simply correlated with them. There is probably a common factor which causes all of those behaviours, probably something to do with education and wealth (although working out exactly what is a bit too much science for a back-of-envelope estimate). Nonetheless, your fundamental criticism of Soylent is probably still valid (even if the target market isn't families.)
thinkalone 13y ago
> Because Soylent robs families and loved ones of the ritual and ceremony of eating together. And frees them up to participate in other rituals together? Just think how many other activities could be correlated with "families that stay together." It's almost a given, since the alternative would be a family that was divorced or estranged from each other... yet still came together for meals.
mcdougle 13y ago
I don't think Soylent has to stop families from eating together, and if it does, the reason those families aren't eating together probably isn't entirely due to Soylent. Rob himself mentions in his blog many times that he imagines most people won't do what he's done and quit eating real food altogether. It's more of a "fast food" replacement than anything. When you're busy with work or something and the act of cooking is a distraction, you'll often just grab a bag of chips from the pantry or -- if you can take the time -- you might run out to the nearest McDonald's to sate your hunger. You don't want food because it's good, or because you're spending time with your family -- you want it because you're hungry. Rob wants to provide a quick and healthy meal for times like that. Will I use Soylent? I dunno, probably not. But I can see where the niche exists.
nether 13y ago
Except liquid meal replacements already exist (Ensure etc.), and the entire world isn't Valley geeks. You could eat cheap fast calories everyday but gourmet restaurants still thrive. Not everyone is obsessed with food practicality.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  Personally speaking, I think the B2B market makes a lot of sense for Soylent. Especially sales to the military, space agencies, and maybe even white labeling for big food companies. In the consumer space, sure, you have some "Valley geeks" who see food as more of a burden to be solved than a source of enjoyment or socialization. But you've also got folks like athletes, both professional and amateur (a much bigger consumer market). If (and it's a big if) Soylent satisfies the requirements of a high-intensity training program, then it could take off there. People who are obsessed with performance nutrition tend to place less emphasis on food-as-experience and more emphasis on food as fuel. That's the Soylent psychographic sweet spot.
  - jw_ 13y ago
    Military organizations already spend a lot of time and money on food, given its overwhelming importance in things like fighting wars. I suspect "Valley nerdchow-paste" is not going to do a lot to raise morale.
    - jonnathanson 13y ago
      "Military organizations already spend a lot of time and money on food, given its overwhelming importance in things like fighting wars" Correct, which is why military branches are deep-pocketed potential buyers. "I suspect "Valley nerdchow-paste" is not going to do a lot to raise morale." In a military context it's not a meal replacement, per se. More of an emergency MRE or HDR replacement, provided it's more shelf stable and can compete on nutritional factors. (Big ifs, of course.) I don't disagree that morale is a concern, though. MREs are nasty, but they're at least attempting to be palatable within the confines of their purpose.
    - 13y ago
peteratt 13y ago
> Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. Have my doubts on this though. One of the things that contribute most to software startups being successful, and the cause for most hugely successful startups having a software component in them, is network effects. You use that software and not another one because, even if there are alternatives, you have vested interests in the shape of user accounts, files, photos, friends... Even hardware startups have software that backs them and creates those vital network effects. Soylent is not software, nor it has a software component in it. Its formula might be a secret (as compiled programs "are"). Yes, it can build a brand, but how long till Nestle and/or Kraft Foods, with all their marketing muscle, release their own Soylent? Might be better to sell Soylent for half that billion to one of them :)
- termain 13y ago
  Soylent's recipe is supposed to be open. http://blog.soylent.me/post/65760097009/as-mentioned-in-the-10-15-update-we-planned-to http://blog.soylent.me/post/65760097009/as-mentioned-in-the-...
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. The Vice writer mentions his compromise with his girlfriend: Every time they would have shared a meal... they do something else together instead. My family eats dinner together nearly every night. But it takes a long time (at least for the slow eating kids). Part of me thinks it would be nice if dinner only took 5 minutes (prep & consumption) and we spent the next hour playing a board game together or reading. Replace one ritual with another.
smspence 13y ago
Haven't similar products existed for a while now? I wonder how Soylent compares to a product like Ensure, or other meal-replacement powders / shakes that have been on the market for years already. Is Soylent significantly cheaper, and/or is it better nutritionally? I think for Soylent to really explode in sales, they should find a way to market it as a cheap weight loss solution or something similar. The mass market loves weight loss products.
- berberous 13y ago
  I've read on the Soylent message board and various related sub-reddits that Ensure and similar products are indeed not as nutritionally optimal. Specifically, many of them are loaded with sugar so that they taste good. Which may be okay for 1 meal, but bad if you are using it regularly. Also, they probably are more expensive. That said, Ensure is usually the product I hear has too much sugar. I'd be curious if anyone with more knowledge has looked into this issue more, or compared the nutritional components of the major players in that market.
segmondy 13y ago
Family that spends time together, stays together. It has nothing to with eating. It's just that eating is a simple way to make it happen in a consistent fashion that's not overly forced.
Yver 13y ago
Your comment reads like you're living in the 60s. I don't think that modern families have the kind of "ritualistic" meals you're describing.
- acuozzo 13y ago
  Anecdote: My family ate together at the dinner table nearly every evening. I look back on our engaging discussions with fondness. I grew up in the '90s.
- bmj 13y ago
  I have two kids (10 and 8). Yes, some nights we do not eat together because of schedules, but those nights are few and far between. My wife and I find it quite important that our family can share a meal at least once a day. We know lots of other "modern" families who do the same thing. Food production and eating are not problems to be solved[0]. If you don't enjoy sitting down to a good meal, well, that's okay by me. Personally, I think you're missing out on something, but that's just my opinion. But please don't act as if giving up on sharing a meal with friends or family is a step forward for humanity. [0] Famine and food shortages notwithstanding. I could see the benefits of Soylent in areas where there are food shortages and people suffer malnutrion.
berberous 13y ago
Is every single meal a social event for you? I eat out at least a few times a week with friends. But if I'm stuck at the office working late or home alone one night, I don't cook. I order off seamless, and a lot of it is garbage. Sure, I should learn to like cooking, but I've failed to do that and that's unlikely to change. So in my mind, replacing the shitty delivery meals with something optimally nutritious would be great. And then on the weekends or when I have time, I'd still of course eat out with friends and family. Soylent is not aiming to replace every meal. But as a replacement for grabbing a slice of pizza on the way home from work by yourself, what's the problem?
- aaron695 13y ago
  Given you're at a computer using HN, then at any off time a good meal is no meal. You can safely say stuffing more food into you is not needed. So the only real reason you eat in these off periods is enjoyment of food, stopping feeling hungry and habit. This is not what Soylent is for as far as I can see.
  - Tehnix 13y ago
    Given you're at a computer using HN, then at any off time a good meal is no meal I don't quite follow, are you saying because one sits behind a computer one doesn't use any energy at all? You can safely say stuffing more food into you is not needed. Food gives energy and mental exhaustion, believe it or not, does actually take up a lot of energy, heck, even just resting takes up energy (it's not like your body stops functioning..). I have to say that I very much follow what the parent is saying. I love eating with people and all, but, I'm not always with someone, and more often than not am too lazy to cook (or I've just forgotten to shop groceries).
mahyarm 13y ago
An low focus activity that you do together achieves the same thing as a meal together. Going for walks, etc. But people are not going to just replace all family dinners with the foods they love with a meal replacement shake.
md224 13y ago
> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself. You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where any threat can be transformed into reinforcement.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Very true. You can't use the fact that someone has something bad to say about you to actually improve your perceived value. It's strictly[1] more probable that you're worse if there is criticism than if there isn't. [1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.
  - contextual 13y ago
    Many HN readers like to rationalize-away inconvenient truths as if it were a game. When I see that kind of weaksauce response, I'm on the right track.
  - pasquinelli 13y ago
    how is it strictly more probable? a person's value and the criticism they receive are independent things. and i don't see any reason to think that for every valid criticism there isn't a corresponding invalid criticism. why should it be that the person being criticized is more likely to be wrong than the critic?
  - endtime 13y ago
    I think the related but slightly more general claim is that you cannot update your beliefs in the same direction for both of two exhaustive and exclusive outcomes. In this case, if people disagreeing with you reinforces your beliefs, then it should be the case that everyone agreeing with you makes you question those beliefs. (This might be reasonable if you are e.g. in a mental asylum.)
- 13y ago
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. What? No it doesn't. The rest of your post was thought-provoking, but this "teenage forum troll with a wounded ego" act drags the whole thing down. I don't recommend repeating it if you want people to take you seriously.
gfodor 13y ago
false dichotomy
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fizx 13y ago
You have a funny definition of "likely". Possible, sure, but likely?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
lfmb 13y ago
http://xkcd.com/1289/ http://xkcd.com/1289/
criley2 13y ago
Fail: the whole point of soylent is to replace convenience meals, not meals of love with your family. Nice to see a critic who obviously hasn't even read the basics of the idea...
sneak 13y ago
> It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. I'm curious how even eating Soylent for 90% of one's meals would perform this "rob[bing]" of which you speak.

aero142 13y ago

No one eats every meal with their family, and people who switch to Soylent for every meal are doing so for the interesting story and proof that Soylent, at least in the short term, is not harmful and is complete. The fact that eating together with friends or family is great has very little to do with Soylent.

vertr07 13y ago

You don't have to eat it all the time. There's no contract, really.

XorNot 13y ago

People keeping bringing this up. What is so difficult about the concept that not everyone wants to, or even can, cook meals that are nutritionally suitable, healthy or even intended to be consumed collectively - all the time?

smspence 13y ago
Because on the internet, and especially in internet comments, the world only exists in black and white. Something is either 100% true for everyone everywhere at all times without exception, or it is 100% false. There is no middle ground, and no shades of gray. Ever.
- markeganfuller 13y ago
  And definitely not 50 of them. </sarcasm>
fleitz 13y ago
Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway. Soylent appeals to exactly those people. If we wanted to live like this we'd just buy a bag of rice and a box of vitamins. We all understand that it's technically possible to use soylent, just that like replacing all your friends with Facebook, or riding a segway, it's social suicide.
- cenhyperion 13y ago
  >it's social suicide Unless your social life is at a deeper level than simply putting food in your mouth around certain people. Either way, I don't think many people would _replace_ food with Soylent so much as they would drink it instead of eating some meals. I'd love to just drink a glass of liquid instead of preparing and eating a lunch.
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Why don't you have a case of Ensure already then?
- Tehnix 13y ago
  >Imagine people said that you could save time and money by replacing friends with Facebook. Or you could stop walking a buy a segway. or, and hold on, not everyone lives with other people (like, say, students etc) and cooking a meal just for yourself is time consuming and requires you have the energy to do so. That says nothing about your social life whatever, but, replacing friends on with facebook does. Soylent is in no way social suicide. Even if I wanted to replace my diet 100% with Soylent, that'd have little implication on my already thriving social life, because, you know, I don't only socialize over dinner, there are actual other things to do...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

jimmar 13y ago

I cook breakfast for my kids every morning. We eat together every night. For lunch, I'm at work and I typically microwave some junk and get on with more important things. For me, it'd be nice to have another solution for the mid-day meal. So, I've bought in for a trial. I'm not expecting it to be a 100% replacement for regular food. My hunch is that most people will not replace 100% of their food with soylent.

lambda 13y ago
Why don't you just buy Ensure or Carnation Instant Breakfast? They already exist and are well known, that you can buy anywhere. Or make yourself a bowl of oatmeal. Or eat leftovers from the night before. I think that the only reason that anyone's interested in Soylent is the current startup/crowdfunding bubble hype, not because it's actually anything particularly new. Soylent is to Ensure as Groupon is to coupons. Before the hype, on select groups (people who were too sick to eat, middle-aged housewives) would be into each of them, but once you add the startup/crowdfunding/Internet angle, all of a sudden a bunch of 20 somethings take a fascination in something that they otherwise would have sneered at.
- gfodor 13y ago
  Ensure tastes like shit. If Soylent tastes reasonably OK, and has stronger guarantees that it can be a true meal replacement than supplements like Ensure, then sign me up.
  - SamuelMulder 13y ago
    Main comments in the original video about taste were that it was pretty nasty. Also smells bad.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > Ensure tastes like shit. What, all different flavours of Ensure? All different styles of Ensure? > supplements like Ensure, Ensure is a sole source of nutrition. Your ignorance about the product speaks volumes.

tehwalrus 13y ago

Correlation/causation - dining together doesn't cause all those benefits, it is simply correlated with them. There is probably a common factor which causes all of those behaviours, probably something to do with education and wealth (although working out exactly what is a bit too much science for a back-of-envelope estimate). Nonetheless, your fundamental criticism of Soylent is probably still valid (even if the target market isn't families.)

thinkalone 13y ago

> Because Soylent robs families and loved ones of the ritual and ceremony of eating together. And frees them up to participate in other rituals together? Just think how many other activities could be correlated with "families that stay together." It's almost a given, since the alternative would be a family that was divorced or estranged from each other... yet still came together for meals.

mcdougle 13y ago

I don't think Soylent has to stop families from eating together, and if it does, the reason those families aren't eating together probably isn't entirely due to Soylent. Rob himself mentions in his blog many times that he imagines most people won't do what he's done and quit eating real food altogether. It's more of a "fast food" replacement than anything. When you're busy with work or something and the act of cooking is a distraction, you'll often just grab a bag of chips from the pantry or -- if you can take the time -- you might run out to the nearest McDonald's to sate your hunger. You don't want food because it's good, or because you're spending time with your family -- you want it because you're hungry. Rob wants to provide a quick and healthy meal for times like that. Will I use Soylent? I dunno, probably not. But I can see where the niche exists.

nether 13y ago

Except liquid meal replacements already exist (Ensure etc.), and the entire world isn't Valley geeks. You could eat cheap fast calories everyday but gourmet restaurants still thrive. Not everyone is obsessed with food practicality.

jonnathanson 13y ago
Personally speaking, I think the B2B market makes a lot of sense for Soylent. Especially sales to the military, space agencies, and maybe even white labeling for big food companies. In the consumer space, sure, you have some "Valley geeks" who see food as more of a burden to be solved than a source of enjoyment or socialization. But you've also got folks like athletes, both professional and amateur (a much bigger consumer market). If (and it's a big if) Soylent satisfies the requirements of a high-intensity training program, then it could take off there. People who are obsessed with performance nutrition tend to place less emphasis on food-as-experience and more emphasis on food as fuel. That's the Soylent psychographic sweet spot.
- jw_ 13y ago
  Military organizations already spend a lot of time and money on food, given its overwhelming importance in things like fighting wars. I suspect "Valley nerdchow-paste" is not going to do a lot to raise morale.
  - jonnathanson 13y ago
    "Military organizations already spend a lot of time and money on food, given its overwhelming importance in things like fighting wars" Correct, which is why military branches are deep-pocketed potential buyers. "I suspect "Valley nerdchow-paste" is not going to do a lot to raise morale." In a military context it's not a meal replacement, per se. More of an emergency MRE or HDR replacement, provided it's more shelf stable and can compete on nutritional factors. (Big ifs, of course.) I don't disagree that morale is a concern, though. MREs are nasty, but they're at least attempting to be palatable within the confines of their purpose.
  - 13y ago

peteratt 13y ago

> Soylent will likely become a billion dollar global enterprise, and even "disrupt" the food industry. Have my doubts on this though. One of the things that contribute most to software startups being successful, and the cause for most hugely successful startups having a software component in them, is network effects. You use that software and not another one because, even if there are alternatives, you have vested interests in the shape of user accounts, files, photos, friends... Even hardware startups have software that backs them and creates those vital network effects. Soylent is not software, nor it has a software component in it. Its formula might be a secret (as compiled programs "are"). Yes, it can build a brand, but how long till Nestle and/or Kraft Foods, with all their marketing muscle, release their own Soylent? Might be better to sell Soylent for half that billion to one of them :)

termain 13y ago
Soylent's recipe is supposed to be open. http://blog.soylent.me/post/65760097009/as-mentioned-in-the-10-15-update-we-planned-to http://blog.soylent.me/post/65760097009/as-mentioned-in-the-...

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

> a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. The Vice writer mentions his compromise with his girlfriend: Every time they would have shared a meal... they do something else together instead. My family eats dinner together nearly every night. But it takes a long time (at least for the slow eating kids). Part of me thinks it would be nice if dinner only took 5 minutes (prep & consumption) and we spent the next hour playing a board game together or reading. Replace one ritual with another.

smspence 13y ago

Haven't similar products existed for a while now? I wonder how Soylent compares to a product like Ensure, or other meal-replacement powders / shakes that have been on the market for years already. Is Soylent significantly cheaper, and/or is it better nutritionally? I think for Soylent to really explode in sales, they should find a way to market it as a cheap weight loss solution or something similar. The mass market loves weight loss products.

berberous 13y ago
I've read on the Soylent message board and various related sub-reddits that Ensure and similar products are indeed not as nutritionally optimal. Specifically, many of them are loaded with sugar so that they taste good. Which may be okay for 1 meal, but bad if you are using it regularly. Also, they probably are more expensive. That said, Ensure is usually the product I hear has too much sugar. I'd be curious if anyone with more knowledge has looked into this issue more, or compared the nutritional components of the major players in that market.

segmondy 13y ago

Family that spends time together, stays together. It has nothing to with eating. It's just that eating is a simple way to make it happen in a consistent fashion that's not overly forced.

Yver 13y ago

Your comment reads like you're living in the 60s. I don't think that modern families have the kind of "ritualistic" meals you're describing.

acuozzo 13y ago
Anecdote: My family ate together at the dinner table nearly every evening. I look back on our engaging discussions with fondness. I grew up in the '90s.
bmj 13y ago
I have two kids (10 and 8). Yes, some nights we do not eat together because of schedules, but those nights are few and far between. My wife and I find it quite important that our family can share a meal at least once a day. We know lots of other "modern" families who do the same thing. Food production and eating are not problems to be solved[0]. If you don't enjoy sitting down to a good meal, well, that's okay by me. Personally, I think you're missing out on something, but that's just my opinion. But please don't act as if giving up on sharing a meal with friends or family is a step forward for humanity. [0] Famine and food shortages notwithstanding. I could see the benefits of Soylent in areas where there are food shortages and people suffer malnutrion.

berberous 13y ago

Is every single meal a social event for you? I eat out at least a few times a week with friends. But if I'm stuck at the office working late or home alone one night, I don't cook. I order off seamless, and a lot of it is garbage. Sure, I should learn to like cooking, but I've failed to do that and that's unlikely to change. So in my mind, replacing the shitty delivery meals with something optimally nutritious would be great. And then on the weekends or when I have time, I'd still of course eat out with friends and family. Soylent is not aiming to replace every meal. But as a replacement for grabbing a slice of pizza on the way home from work by yourself, what's the problem?

aaron695 13y ago
Given you're at a computer using HN, then at any off time a good meal is no meal. You can safely say stuffing more food into you is not needed. So the only real reason you eat in these off periods is enjoyment of food, stopping feeling hungry and habit. This is not what Soylent is for as far as I can see.
- Tehnix 13y ago
  Given you're at a computer using HN, then at any off time a good meal is no meal I don't quite follow, are you saying because one sits behind a computer one doesn't use any energy at all? You can safely say stuffing more food into you is not needed. Food gives energy and mental exhaustion, believe it or not, does actually take up a lot of energy, heck, even just resting takes up energy (it's not like your body stops functioning..). I have to say that I very much follow what the parent is saying. I love eating with people and all, but, I'm not always with someone, and more often than not am too lazy to cook (or I've just forgotten to shop groceries).

mahyarm 13y ago

An low focus activity that you do together achieves the same thing as a meal together. Going for walks, etc. But people are not going to just replace all family dinners with the foods they love with a meal replacement shake.

md224 13y ago

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself. You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where any threat can be transformed into reinforcement.

StavrosK 13y ago
Very true. You can't use the fact that someone has something bad to say about you to actually improve your perceived value. It's strictly[1] more probable that you're worse if there is criticism than if there isn't. [1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.
- contextual 13y ago
  Many HN readers like to rationalize-away inconvenient truths as if it were a game. When I see that kind of weaksauce response, I'm on the right track.
- pasquinelli 13y ago
  how is it strictly more probable? a person's value and the criticism they receive are independent things. and i don't see any reason to think that for every valid criticism there isn't a corresponding invalid criticism. why should it be that the person being criticized is more likely to be wrong than the critic?
- endtime 13y ago
  I think the related but slightly more general claim is that you cannot update your beliefs in the same direction for both of two exhaustive and exclusive outcomes. In this case, if people disagreeing with you reinforces your beliefs, then it should be the case that everyone agreeing with you makes you question those beliefs. (This might be reasonable if you are e.g. in a mental asylum.)
13y ago

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

> I'm glad to see so many people disagree with me. It means I'm on the right track. What? No it doesn't. The rest of your post was thought-provoking, but this "teenage forum troll with a wounded ego" act drags the whole thing down. I don't recommend repeating it if you want people to take you seriously.

gfodor 13y ago

false dichotomy

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

fizx 13y ago

You have a funny definition of "likely". Possible, sure, but likely?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

lfmb 13y ago

http://xkcd.com/1289/ http://xkcd.com/1289/

criley2 13y ago

Fail: the whole point of soylent is to replace convenience meals, not meals of love with your family. Nice to see a critic who obviously hasn't even read the basics of the idea...

sneak 13y ago

> It will also ultimately be a failure and frowned upon in modern society. Why? Because a Soylent-saturated world would rob families and loved ones of the ritual and benefits of eating together. I'm curious how even eating Soylent for 90% of one's meals would perform this "rob[bing]" of which you speak.