Soylent: It's Not People. Or Food.

> Or food.

Neither is half the stuff on the shelf at 7-11 but people still literally live on it. At least Soylent took a stab at engineering for health instead of merely addictive taste over-stimulation.

Not calling it "food" is a little off-putting, since it is "nutritously edible" unlike a lot of industrial food marketed to the time-money-impovershed. This is fascinating stuff, and people are trying to make their own formulas as well, here's a couple sites:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/h2h/soylent_orange_whole_food_open_s...

http://diy.soylent.me/

Personally I've already invested so much in organics that I'll have to work my way through that before I can give it an n=1 go.

Soylent and food are not mutually exclusive. Soylent replaces feed, not food.

If anything, soylent makes those times when you eat out extra special, since you get to eat out for the sake of flavour rather than to fill up your belly, and you get to spend the money you didn't spend on regular meals.

Saw the IEEE domain and was intrigued, but this is just another "I don't get it" piece, wherein the author reveals himself to also not get it (or more likely, is being deliberately obtuse because it makes for a 'better' article).

I stopped reading after:

    ...effort to produce a single foodstuff that could
    be consumed, to the exclusion of anything else... 

I am interested in Soylent. I am interested in what people, who took the time to find out about it, say about Soylent. But this is a strawman at best, and ignorant at worst.

We were also a little put off by the "it's not food" hyperbole, which is why we made MealSquares. I think it will be appealing to a lot of people who like the concept of Soylent but not the execution.

I could lease a new BMW with the money I'd save eating Soylent. There is no food in the world that produces more happiness than a new BMW.

You all know this article is from a year ago right? Relevance?