4 ms·

If anything, I don't understand the worries people have about replacing 95% of their entire diet with a well-engineered food. In the past people lived on a sing

If anything, I don't understand the worries people have about replacing 95% of their entire diet with a well-engineered food. In the past people lived on a single or very small number of crops. In our current time we know people who live entirely on fast food or delivery pizza. The human body is more resilient than we give it credit for and having soilent is likely better than what we'd be giving it otherwise.

pizza234 11y ago
Conceptually it wouldn't be different than satisfying 95% of sexual needs with well-engineered sex dolls; then also satisfying 95% of the fitness needs with well-engineered electrical muscle stimulators; then also satifying 95% of the romantic needs with a well-engineered dating app. And so on. I wouldn't define myself "worried" of this, but I find utterly banal (infinitely misable, to be honest) that the existential end of all this optimization is (metaphorically) to have more time to produce and consume the next iPhone. Talking on the strictly nutritional perspective, we can't compare the past. Infant mortality, in those times, was much higher. And the body may be resilient, yes, but don't forget that a very large percentage of people in USA is clinically obese, that is, sick.
- darkmighty 11y ago
  I like this implication; it's hard to define meaningful and consistent goals to ourselves when we are relieved of our usual constraints to get pleasure/satisfaction (our means are basically eat food, socialize, have sex, practice sport, consume culture) -- how do we distinguish fundamentally means to ends? To illustrate, extend Soylent to a more general Hapiness drink. If you took it, you'd be instantly and lastingly satisfied, allowing you to do work and stay very productive without the need to "waste time" socializing, practicing sports or w/e -- and suppose this satisfaction is indeed indistinguishable or better from activity-borne satisfaction. Would we choose to consume it, and why not, fundamentally?

pizza234 11y ago

Conceptually it wouldn't be different than satisfying 95% of sexual needs with well-engineered sex dolls; then also satisfying 95% of the fitness needs with well-engineered electrical muscle stimulators; then also satifying 95% of the romantic needs with a well-engineered dating app. And so on. I wouldn't define myself "worried" of this, but I find utterly banal (infinitely misable, to be honest) that the existential end of all this optimization is (metaphorically) to have more time to produce and consume the next iPhone. Talking on the strictly nutritional perspective, we can't compare the past. Infant mortality, in those times, was much higher. And the body may be resilient, yes, but don't forget that a very large percentage of people in USA is clinically obese, that is, sick.

darkmighty 11y ago
I like this implication; it's hard to define meaningful and consistent goals to ourselves when we are relieved of our usual constraints to get pleasure/satisfaction (our means are basically eat food, socialize, have sex, practice sport, consume culture) -- how do we distinguish fundamentally means to ends? To illustrate, extend Soylent to a more general Hapiness drink. If you took it, you'd be instantly and lastingly satisfied, allowing you to do work and stay very productive without the need to "waste time" socializing, practicing sports or w/e -- and suppose this satisfaction is indeed indistinguishable or better from activity-borne satisfaction. Would we choose to consume it, and why not, fundamentally?