3 ms·
> the Soylent project's based on a very flawed assumption, that you can isolate the number of nutrients necessary for sustenance. Sorry, we certainly can. Ask
by saulrh 12y ago
> the Soylent project's based on a very flawed assumption, that you can isolate the number of nutrients necessary for sustenance.
Sorry, we certainly can. Ask anybody who's been in a coma for a while. We've had that technology since about the sixties.
The rest of your post contains so much wrongness that I don't have time to elaborate my arguments against it.
> 60,000 unique nutrients
None of those are relevant. They aren't sufficiently electrochemically stable to resist your stomach acid and turn into vastly simpler things. They also aren't really used by anything; we understand the vast majority of our body's major biochemical pathways and they don't use particularly complicated stuff.
> plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms
Which is, hilariously enough, not at all what we evolved to eat. I can believe that you had a major disorder that made meat not particularly good for you, but generally speaking we're omnivorous hunter-gatherers.
> Soylent contains a much smaller number of nutrients.
One reason why I trust it more. I bet you that some of those 60k are downright poisonous. Remember: organic just means you get randomly diseased insects in your food rather than carefully-chosen, relatively harmless, and easily-washable pesticides.
> you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger.
... Stop peddling trash. Berry smoothie. There, fiber in a drink.
- quadrangle 12y agoI have every reason to think the deleted post you are responding to was misguided, wrong, and largely nonsense. That said, I really think it's absurd to be so flippant about concerns over pesticides. We do not at all have clarity and overwhelming evidence that pesticides on food are just no problem and can be ignored as an issue.
- saulrh 12y agoI can very easily believe that pesticides exist which are completely neutral to humans. I eat chocolate and garlic perfectly fine, but my pets certainly wouldn't enjoy them. Worst-case they're like acetaminophen and require liver pathways that humans evolved recently so they're inefficient but unique. The big issue with pesticides is that the manufacturers are messing with the science that would let us figure out how safe they are. As for the flippancy, I see it as a reasonable response to the fearmongering about modern agricultural methods. Anti-GMO and Anti-Chemistry beliefs are harmful enough that I'm not going to try to keep my arguments kosher. I'm just going to try to convince the believers in whatever way I can. Arguments to emotion seem to work for them, so I figure that they'll work on them just as well.