Soylent on the latest Vice piece
blog.soylent.me
blog.soylent.me
Argh! But, well played.
The health department in SF will shut down restaurants for less.
How is something barely sealed? It is either sealed or it isn't.
They're trying hard to play up the amateur hour part, and that bit with the doctor's "I don't recommend it" where she lists the social aspects of food after she was holding an existing commercial meal replacement drink was pure sensationalism.
Even for an opinion piece, they could stand to be quite a bit more fair. The video said nothing of the bag puncture (only the mold), or the fact that the hand assembled soylent was a limited promo batch and not the final product.
Also, the clinical trial demand (something we require none of at the grocery store) at the end seems simply silly when he breaks his fast with FRIED CHICKEN, something for which we already have plenty of data to indicate that it's bad for your body. You don't get to say "I'll try it once it's held to standards that I hold no other food to" while eating things out of a deep fryer without looking like a total jackass.
It's a smear piece. I expect better from Vice.
What? I like rooting for the underdog newcomer and all but will you please settle down. The social aspects of food are pretty freaking relevant and worth talking about in an extended article on Soylent. As well exposing are any shortcuts they're taking, no matter how trivial they seem. You'd expect a review on a restaurant to tell you if the reviewers saw any rats there, right? Despite the rats being there, besides questionable operating practices the Vice piece was overall positive, so just cool it there on kicking Vice around.
To me, the Vice article was okay. It certainly wasn't a smear piece, but it did (deliberately?) structure things or not talk about important stuff that would cause controversy. For me, I think Soylent isn't for me at all, but for such an extended article on it it sure missed some very important information. This gives the impression of trying to smear Soylent.
---------------
Meta: wow, I really get worked up over this Soylent stuff. There's something deeply disturbing about this to me, like we're witnessing the birth of a monster. Maybe it's the first sign of the worst of the "move fast, break things" cutting corners culture smelling money to be made iterating on peoples' health...
They're already subjecting the production version to rigorous testing.
As for trials, those cost hundreds of millions of dollars and are done for no other food. Are you suggesting that they simply not make Soylent because it hasn't gone through a phase 3?
I bet you're real fun at bake sales.
Try running a public beta on some cancer drugs and see how far you get.
1) This isn't a public beta.
2) If cancer drugs WEREN'T tested before being sold, I would be far more worried.
[1]http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/cli...
Beneath the snark and hyperbole in my post, this was intended to be my point. I don't feel like someone with this mindset necessarily warrants trust in their ability to safely make the product in the future.
I just get this gut reaction against Soylent that makes me care less about structuring my thoughts in a more civilized manner. Back to ruining fun at bake sales.
As far as the "beta testing on strangers" aspect, I'd point you to sneak's comment[1], which sums up the slight absurdity of requiring one food to be rigorously tested and adhere to some hypothetical standard. I frequently eat MetRx "meal replacement bars"[2] and I don't assume they are held to any rigorous trials. After some cursory research, I don't even know if Plumpy'nut[3] is held to any standard, aside from beta testing it on starving children and seeing if they improve.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722836
Currently in NorCal, there are rodents infected with both Bubonic Plague and Hemmoragic fever. And their <shit> is an effective vector that can get you killed. Even if they are nowhere in sight. So, its best to be somewhat educated and conscientious on the topic.
On the one hand I'm deeply suspicious of replacing food with something that is in a very approximate sense "equivalent". But he does make an excellent point that making healthy "food" convenient could prove to be a great boost to public health.
You can always say "use" instead of "utilize" to avoid buzzwords and sound more conversational. In fact, there are only a few specific cases (mostly in science writing) where "utilize" is necessary:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/use-versu...
First, both are open-ended and relative. "Fast" and "efficient" compared to what? A cheetah is "fast", but it's not fast if I'm trying to use them to propel fighter jets. If I say, "my code is fast", am I saying it's fast enough for the problem at hand? Faster than it was before? Fast compared to most other code that solves the same problem?
"Efficient" has all of the same problems and it's also ambiguous. If my library is efficient, does that mean it runs fast? Starts up fast? Uses memory efficiently? Bandwidth?
"Performant" is etymologically strange, but in the place I've seen it used, it has an effective, precise meaning: "well-performing in speed relative to the needs of the problem". It means "fast enough" without the negative connotations of "enough", sort of like "plenty fast". Likewise, it's negation is usefully precise, "not performant" means "however fast it is, that isn't enough for our needs".
No, "performant" is one of those words which is usually chosen to flatter the speaker, not because it imparts some meaning which is so difficult to describe without it.
When it comes to technical topics, amateurs write to impress. Professionals write for clarity.
I use "use" when something is put to its intended or designed use; I use a shirt by wearing it. I utilize a shirt by wrapping it around my arm, as a pressure dressing, to stop bleeding.
From: Politics and the English language, George Orwell, 1946 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
I think this is probably one of the best handled rollouts of a product with so high a potential for controversy. Each issue seems to get addressed rapidly, the company is pursuing a quest for quality, and the product itself is coming together rapidly.
I'm glad to have contributed.
Summary: Soylent aims for something more ideal than a suboptimal solution. It's a day to day meal replacement for otherwise healthy, active people. Given the ingredients of Ensure, I wouldn't want to try to live on it for 30 days. It's like Google vs. Altavista, if you'll pardon the strained analogy.
People point out existing commercially available meal replacements, but I've been wondering about what hospitals use. There are already people that have to live for extended periods by being fed through a tube.
So has anyone done a comparison of soylent vs meal replacements vs medical products?
I have family ties into this industry, and quite frankly this comment is rather ignorant. Ensure is a brand range, with a lot of variation, some of which are, for example, extremely high in calories.
It is also worth noting that one of the uses of products like Ensure is to actually mix in with regular cooking, increasing the calorific and nutritional value of normal food.
Comparing existing products in the market with "Altavista", and Soylent with "Google" is also very disingenuous, as it serves to discredit all the work put into existing products, and ignores their business model. Funnily enough, Ensure isn't marketed as hipster-food, and everything about it is tailored for their target market of the medical industry.
As hackers, surely we should be supporting good business, rather than blindly going with the latest fad?
There's more to "product" than what's in the bag.
In our tech focused, Business to consumer / mass business market, it is easy to forget about hands-on sales.
These products, remember, have lots of legislation around them, very strict instructions on when they are appropriate to be used, training is required in order to really use many of them properly, and so on. That tends to be the first indicator of the need for sales reps.
Equally, and perhaps more importantly, remember that direct to consumers is a market for these products only because of clinical teams recommending them. Their typical sales targets are huge, and are acquired in big bulk contracts with entire hospitals, if not healthcare regional bodies. Contracts on that scale are, again, typically done via sales teams who work closely with a client, build a relationship, and help the client get the most out of their sales. This model also exists in the tech industry, and indeed is how most Big Enterprise IT works.
I'm sure they could get more direct to consumer sales if they improved their website, yes. But even ignoring any legislative issues with directly aiding that market, why focus on growing the 5% of your market (being generous!), when that 95% of hands-on sales is really what you should be investing in?
Ensure itself doesn't want you to. Because its a food supplement, not 'food'.
The right analogy is to compare {Soylent, Ensure} with {Cereal, Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, Milk, Eggs and other natural food}
On the other hand, some people use food as a drug, and removing it may be helpful in a Buddhist desire-suppression kind of way.
I doubt that PG is aware of this type of orchestrated manipulation going on. It is quite dangerous for the credibility of HN.
Soylent seems interesting and potentially disruptive. However, it is FOOD and deserves to be put under the microscope. Anyone conniving to make them dodge scrutiny (especially via underhand moves) is not doing them any favours.
You can't reasonably expect impartial and unbiased information to come from this site, can you? They have a vested interest in seeing the success of their children.
No they don't. Unless you can point to something that shows they do?
The company is claiming that it is a dietary supplement and NOT food in order to avoid FDA scrutiny. At least that is what the PandoDaily article that was originally linked to claims.
Soylent is regulated as a supplement, but sold and promoted as a food.
People aren't asking for weird amounts of scrutiny, just for the same amount of regulation as the rest of the food chain.
Seeing the filthy conditions that the beta product was made in was surprising - the founders knowing how bad it was but continuing to ship beta product to paying beta customers is weird.
None of the paying customers orders' have shipped yet. That happens in January, and those orders are being prepared professionally.
The marketing of Soylent is certainly more active these days which isn't really that surprising as the product and company have developed from a concept to a full fledged and funded company. They're affiliating themselves with claims and experiences that may be unfounded, just like the McRib implies it's a delicious BBQ pork sandwich and not processed meat (pork?) shaped to look like rib meat or how car manufactures imply that purchasing a new vehicle will improve your life substantially. Customers will decide if their product matches their claims or if the product serves enough of a function to purchase despite the fact that it may not meet all of the claims it affiliates itself with (like complete food replacement... which is a marketing affiliation, not a legal claim). If you buy Soylent and get sick because all you eat is Soylent and you don't take the necessary precautions when completely changing your diet then you're in that category of consumer that might buy Axe Body Spray and think it's going to be the sole factor that makes you attractive to female models.
Marketing can be over the top and distasteful, but that doesn't relieve consumers from their responsibility to be skeptical of marketing claims and do their own research and basic risk remediation before purchasing a product.
An excellent question. It doesn't, it needs the same scrutiny as those products.
Because they're telling the FDA that it's a supplement they get by with lower levels of regulation and inspection.
I don't doubt it, and I also don't care. He's a business man. He's got money at stake. It's his site. Why shouldn't he use it to help market this stuff? Nobody is being forced to buy it. I see nothing wrong with that.
From what I've learned so far, the only factor letting this product down for me is the price. I'd guess $65/w is around what I'm spending on food now. Do we have any idea of their margin? Is the price expected to decrease once they get a decent production line up?
I spend almost that simply for lunch each day (sushi, sandwiches...food on-the-go), so for me spending $65 a week would pretty easily save money. Makes me curious how many people (in the U.S.) spend less than $65 a week on food.
People who don't cook are looking to save a lot of money even at the $65/w price point.
Going back to solid food took a few days of introducing progressively more and more solid food back into my system and was not terribly fun.
I think the appeal of this, in terms of time savings during busy work periods, is intriguing. But there's already tons of these kinds of things in a very crowded market, and I don't even have to mix it myself. But as an extended, multi-week replacement? No thanks.
However, they big challenge they will eventually face is the existing nutritional product manufacturers. At the moment, Soylent is not viewed as a serious competitor, but it is worth remembering that if they prove that a market exists, Abbott, Nestlé and the like both have the marketing clout and some rather clever tricks to muscle in on the market.
But the saddest thing of all? Despite companies like Soylent, Abbott, Nutriset, Nestlé, etc, clinical malnutrition is still a serious issue. Proper nutrition is essential to successful treatment to many issues (cancer being one), yet it is still commonly neglected by clinical staff and administrators :( And most people don't even know about the risks and that different options exist for different needs!
(Disclaimer: family work in the industry)
Not as trivially portable as a bottle of soylent, but otherwise superior in every respect.
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-... [2] 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.
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.
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.
As far as the taste, it's too soon to tell. Indications are that it's pretty flavorless http://gawker.com/we-drank-soylent-the-weird-food-of-the-fut... (outside of joking reactions like "It was great and I love it. I don't want to eat anymore.") Given that they aren't particularly focusing on trying to make it taste good ("I'm not trying to make something delicious; there are already a lot of delicious things. It's all about efficiency, it's about cost and convenience."), I doubt it will wind up tasting much better than Ensure.
I just don't get all of the excitement over Soylent. It seems like a solution in search of a problem. It's pretty damn easy to get a healthy diet for cheap and extremely low effort, as long as you don't care about flavor and variety. Rice, beans, and grated cheese covers pretty much all of your nutritional needs (maybe toss in a multivitamin per day to be on the safe side), takes about 5 minutes of work and 15 minutes of waiting for it to simmer, you can prepare a week's worth in advance and reheat it over the course of the week, and it will cost you less than $5 per day in the US. How is Soylent supposed to be so much better than that that it will "disrupt the world food system"?
Given how bad the hype has become (Soylent appears to me to be about as useful and likely to be successful as Pets.com), I think it's time to start shoring a bunch of Silicon Valley stock; we appear to have hit the next bubble. The problem is that outside of Twitter and Facebook, no one has really gone public recently, so it's a lot harder to actually short these silly companies.
I've tried supplements and eating very dense foods (lots of grease and carbs) with lukewarm results but if Soylent works as promised, it'll basically change my life.
That said, my comment was meant to be humourous and I totally understand how people who don't have problems with normal food might view Soylent. It's the ultimate first-world problem.
I know of Ensure Plus because I know lots of people with anorexia, and it's used during refeeding programs. (Sometimes as a drink, and sometimes through an NG tube).
Sure, there may be some people in specialized circumstances that have problems with normal food, though there are a lot of options already (smoothies, existing meal replacements like Ensure, possibly even bodybuilding focused meal replacements as they tend to focus on being high-calorie, soups, etc). And yeah, Soylent does seem like the ultimate first-world-problem food.
Anyhow, good luck with trying to get more calories in your diet, and if Soylent helps you with that, all the better!
> Water, Sugar, Corn Syrup Solids, Modified Milk Ingredients, Cocoa, High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Corn Oil, Salt, Artificial Flavour, Soy Oil
Just because something is "well known" doesn't make it better. Nestle is not a company with an outstanding global reputation and if given the choice between trusting them or a company like Soylent, I'm going to choose Soylent.
Like others here, I view Soylent as an interesting experiment. I enjoy a nice meal as much as the next person but I also appreciate the value of something fast, simple and nutritionally complete that can be used from time to time as supplementation when you don't feel the need to sit down for an actual meal.
My point is that there already are a lot of products out there that are "fast, simple, and nutritionally complete that can be used from time to time as supplementation when you don't feel the need to sit down for an actual meal," but I don't see everyone who's so excited about Soylent already using them on a regular basis. OK, perhaps you would prefer to have something without sugar in it (I'm not sure why you would object to the other ingredients, fats and salts are essential parts of your diet), but I would think that if Soylent were going to be as popular as people make it out to be, there would already be lots of people replacing meals with existing meal replacements. All Soylent offers over the others is that it's bland, as far as I can tell.
I'm not saying the existing, well known ones are better. Just that they haven't revolutionized food or replaced traditional meals on a large scale or anything.
There are plenty of people who do already replace occasional meals with these existing meal replacers, along with energy bars and the like. So, Soylent will be one more out of a large number of choices in this field, produced by people with no particular food industry experience, and more bland than the rest. Is that supposed to get me excited about "the future of food"?
I can imagine people who already do use existing meal replacers, but having some particular problem with them that Soylent solves, might go for this. And then there's the Silicon Valley hype bubble, where a bunch of people will buy it and drink it for lunch for a month or two before getting bored and excited by the next big new thing (Twitter to your shoes! Personal Instagram quadcopter follow bot! Distributed decentralized FarmVille/GTA hybrid!)
The reason I'm so baffled by this is that it's hard to imagine why so many people would get excited about yet another product in an already crowded marketplace that's fairly niche (well, fairly niche for people who use them as their primary nutrition; relatively large for people who use it to replace an occasional meal). I don't see anything revolutionary about Soylent; it's yet another meal replacer.
(@rosalabs is the company behind Soylent.)
Nonetheless, your fundamental criticism of Soylent is probably still valid (even if the target market isn't families.)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
You could eat cheap fast calories everyday but gourmet restaurants still thrive. Not everyone is obsessed with food practicality.
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.
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.
I would consider 'microwave food' as lazy. Food is the at most basic necessity of your body, with air, water, shelter and clothes.
Are people really so busy that you can't get off your keyboard to eat something? I am not sure if that is the case merely using Soylent is going to fix any of your problems.
Last I heard, the main focus of new food efforts for the military is long-shelf-life food that does a better job of emulating "normal" food. Because it makes a pretty big difference to morale.
> 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).
A market that's highly saturated with well-established nutritional supplements and meal substitute powders, shakes, etc. The one space where Soylent has an advantage over established market players is in marketing to Valley geeks that are insulated from the other markets for this kind of product (some of which is of the "this product is a good fit for you" type, and some of which is "this product is a solution to all kinds of other things for which there are not currently solutions" type, but both of those are marketing messages for Soylent that are mostly successful with the same demographic.)
Especially when you so totally miss the point of Soylent vs. sports supplements like Myoplex: The latter are not in any way trying to provide the same. They generally aim for roughly a certain mix of proteins, carbs and fats + various mixes of other ingredients that often seem to be chosen mostly to be buzzword complete.
In fact, here's some sales copy regarding Myoplex:
"EAS recommends supplementing your diet with 2-3 high quality Myoplex nutrition shakes along with 3-4 whole food meals a day to ensure that any nutritional "gaps" are filled. "
I use a lot of supplements - for my protein intake I use or have used a variety of shakes, bars, muffins (yes...), cookies, to complement my high protein "real foods". To date I have never found a sports supplement that tastes nice without being way too high calorie for my use, but I can tolerate that for the convenience.
But more importantly: most sport supplements are very limited in their overall nutritional profile. For a reason - for protein heavy products people tend to focus on whey and to a lesser extent casein, and most products aim to minimize other ingredients unless that are products for specific other purposes, such as weight gainers etc. They're supplements for occasional meal replacement. They are not intended to replace food in general.
And exactly what appeals to me about Soylent is that it might provide a good alternative to fill those "nutritional gaps" mentioned in the Myoplex sales copy, which are pretty much inevitable if you were to stick with only regular sports supplements. As I said: I'm not interested in replacing food entirely, but having something available that I can have reasonable confidence is reasonably complete, that I know the calorie content of by volume, so it's easy to measure and keep track, and that is quick and convenient for when I don't have the time or want the hassle of sorting out a proper meal would be great.
I've had enough Mcdonalds for this lifetime. Bring on the Soylent vending machines!
Maybe my sarcasm detector is off but I don't see how this is a real question.
Delicious cheeseburger? Have you even eaten at a McDonalds?
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html [More than one-third of U.S. adults (35.7%) are obese.]
http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/statistics.htm [Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States.]
I'd still much rather put bland goop into my body considering how terrible the contents of a Big 'n' Tasty combo meal is for my health.
Ever heard of the term 'balanced diet'?
The word itself is starting to grate on me, as "lecker" in German already does thanks to its overuse.
I choose -- false dichotomy. Plenty of healthy and not tasteless quick meal replacements that already exist.
Most things that innately taste good -- stuff that you could drop in a blender and drink and it'd still be agreeable -- are fatty, salty, starchy, sugary, or some mix of all these. Healthy and good-tasting food requires pleasant textures and careful composition that allows a small amount of fat, salt, starch, etc. to enhance the flavor of the whole meal.
"Fatty" is not a synonym for unhealthy by the way. A lot of people consider high fat/low carb diets to be healthier than the reverse.
The problem is, McDonalds meals are not healthy, full stop:
Mcdonald's - Big Mac Meal With Fries and Coke With No Onions
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/mcdonalds-big-mac-...
1130 Calories, and 67 grams of sugar. Call me when McDonalds modifies their meals to consist primarily of protein/fat calories.
The burger itself is fine. You wouldn't go to Subway for a nice sandwich and drink a liter of Coke afterwards and a bag of chips and complain about how unhealthy it is.
Here you can get some nice fresh crispy raw carrots instead of fries.
Right...that's why I called the scenario a false dichotomy.
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 :)
http://blog.soylent.me/post/65760097009/as-mentioned-in-the-...
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.
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.
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.
I grew up in the '90s.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
But people are not going to just replace all family dinners with the foods they love with a meal replacement shake.
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.
[1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.
But this is not a new phenomenon.
I mean, make no mistake: the parent not only has no idea what he's talking about, his thinking also suffers from multiple logical fallacies. Let's go through a few of them.
1. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying.
Sure. Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? I told one of my coworkers that I ordered a week's worth, and guess what: she asked me if she could try it with me.
2. Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating.
No, eating "real food" (whatever that means) persisted throughout human history because we did not have any alternatives. It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal, or should be accepted as such.
Well, no one. But, you know, if you're kind of in a "I want the convenience of eating my food from a pre-mixed sack" mode, it's not illogical that you may be less social with your mealtimes. "Hey, bring your sack over to my place and we'll gulp them down in 5 minutes together!"
>It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal
I am trying to think of something that "kinda just happens" 100% of the time with no effort, but that's not normal. Isn't that the definition of normal?
I vote that we colloquially dub this the "fight makes right" fallacy. And yes, I find it more than vaguely troubling.
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.
Nice to see a critic who obviously hasn't even read the basics of the idea...
I'm curious how even eating Soylent for 90% of one's meals would perform this "rob[bing]" of which you speak.
I say this because everybody complains the first days are really hard on their bodies and nerves. So a smooth transition would make it easier to stick to the plan and reduce drop rates.
Example phase in:
1 soylent + 2 normal meals for the first week
2 soylent + 1 normal meals for the second week
3 soylent meals from then on.
There isn't one group on the planet that wouldn't benefit from at least a little bit of Soylent at some point in their regular lives.
It doesn't have to replace their family meals, and it doesn't have to replace their social eating.
But it can be their occasional breakfast when they got up a little too late. Or their lunch when they need to run to the post office in their lunch break. Or their "eating at my computer" food when they're busy programming and don't want to order pizza delivery. Or their everyday staple when they're on a budget. Or their emergency food when they've just been hit by a tsunami and the rescue team won't come for days. Or their backpack food when they're on a military mission. Or their one-meal a day when they're in a submarine with tight space issues. Etc. etc. etc.