I have prepaid for some. If it's not awful I plan to try using it for the majority of my nutritional needs.
I like eating, but I don't like sourcing, preparing, cooking or cleaning up. I don't like eating in at restaurants either. I'm lazy and antisocial. So my intake is currently pretty bad, mostly take out or processed items. Soylent would definitely be an improvement for me nutritionally.
You may not be snarking, but a lot of people seem very upset that this product exists and that people are interested in it. I'm not sure why.
I assume people are upset with the idea because it epitomizes the worst parts of nothing but numbers reductionist tech ideology. They're upset with the product because it preys on such people, and is possibly a net negative. It's not a major concern of mine.
That still doesn't make any sense. They're not forced to do anything with it - it's the "offended it exists" thing which I simply do not understand (well that, and all the people creating 5-star gourmet cuisine every night, who seem to show up).
> Why are you following this story? Why are you voting it up? Do you actually want to buy and eat this nutritionally balanced gruel? Why?
I don't like the idea of Soylent. I enjoy cooking, eating out, and trying new things. If you are so busy that you absolutely can't manage to make things (even in advance) or eat out, there's likely other lifestyle problems that Soylent won't solve for you.
However, I'm interested in it because of a) whether it is healthy long-term; b) what this could mean for our eating habits/nutrition in the future, and; c) potential ramifications for those who are not well off.
Healthy, fresh food ain't cheap, and if something in the future (perhaps not Soylent itself) can alleviate the nutritional side of things it'd be a step forward. Obviously, fresh food shouldn't be restricted only to the wealthy, but I don't think an option would be bad.
There are still a lot of questions about what constitutes a "complete" diet, how much regulation should surround products like Soylent, and so on.
Soylent is a leading application of an analytical/techie approach to the "question" of food (i.e. what do we eat?), which is even bigger than online advertising, electric cars, or video games.
No, you're describing a number of well-established scientific fields along with basic human instinct and intelligence.
Eat food. It has worked quite well for a very long time. There is nothing better to eat than food. No data analysis is required to eat food. Interestingly, any biological creature is capable of eating food. There are a variety of foods that you are capable of digesting, and it's likely that you were introduced to these foods as a young child. You will enjoy eating these foods and they'll manage to help you live out your natural lifespan. Maybe you'd also like to take a vitamin, but it's probably unnecessary and possibly harmful depending on your health status.
Food is fairly simple unless you pretend that it's not.
So food is "simple", yet obviously depending on the type and quantity of food eaten, we consume a different assortment and balance of nutrients. I don't think anyone can argue that there isn't a huge percentage of the population that does a bad job of managing that balance. If that's the case, then Soylent could help those people - more power to them.
If, on the other hand, the body is resilient, and we don't have to be that precise about what we eat (as in, just eat "reasonably healthy" foods and you'll be fine), then soylent should be a reasonable substitute, even if it isn't without flaws.
Either way, they should keep going with their plan - I wish them well.
Personally I hate food: shopping for it, preparing it, and eating it (most times). I'd rather take a pill or chug a drink and be done with it for another 24 hours. Soylent came in and it was a bright light at the end of a dark tunnel (that is, if it's workable)
It's an interesting question, just what nutrients does the human body need in order to sustain itself? We have a good definition of what individual cells need but not a lot of data for how the body copes long term with just those nutrients. My guess is that will power will lose out in the end.
Thank you for answer. I swear I'm not just trolling, but I'd really like to push you a little further on that point. First, I should be clear that I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you of anything. I just want to understand what people are thinking.
Bearing that in mind, would you be so kind as to read on while I make the "Dr. Spock" case against Soylent?
Scientifically, the questions about human nutritional requirements you alluded to were largely answered 70 years ago by British government researchers. They put volunteers on controlled diets, with varying quantities of different micro-nutrients, and studied the effects carefully. It's thanks to their work that Britain avoided mass malnutrition during the war.
As a nutritionist, Rob Rhinehart isn't fit to hold a clipboard for those pioneers. What kind of incompetent neglects to add iron to his initial formulation?
And there's plenty of precedent for these kinds of nutritionally balanced rations, usually developed for military or medical purposes. E.g. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy'nut. If I were to make my own Soylent, I'd probably use that as my starting point: it's cheaper and better tasting that Rhinehart's formulation. I don't see anyone getting excited over those.
So ... that's the "Dr. Spock" argument. But Dr. Spock wouldn't buy a Rolex, or get a tattoo either, and yet people do.
Whatever the case is for investing in Soylent, it's not rational. It's about your emotions, or it's a status symbol, or a it's statement of identity. Something fuzzy and humanistic.
But what? What is it? I truly don't get it. Can you enlighten me?
Thanks for your answers, guys. I get it now. In hindsight, it's obvious.
It's marketed at people who want to solve two problems:
1. How can I be sure that my diet is healthy?
2. How can I avoid expending so much time, effort and money on food?
And given some of the weird diets I've seen some geeks subsist on ("Only ham and pineapple pizza."), I guess it's not so surprising that some would like the idea.
It's also about safety in numbers. If 10,000 other guys are eating the same formula, you can be pretty confident that any "bugs" are likely to be found and fixed pretty quickly.
In a sense, this is a giant nutritionist experiment. If it's a success, there will probably be a few people who eat almost nothing but Soylent for years on end. Let's see if it keeps them healthy.
Personally, I think soylent, as a daily meal replacement, is a horrible idea but, like a lot of things, it will find it's place.
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make above. The argument (as I read it) is that we studied nutrition 70 years ago, Rob isn't a nutritionist, and there is something else you prefer to soylent so it's irrational and no one should use it? That may be an esoteric argument against soylent and Rob but not the idea of soylent.
If you could theoretically develop a solution that you only needed to drink once a day to get all of the nutrients your body needs and feel satiated, why wouldn't you drink that? You could then spend your time doing other things that are more important to you. While for some people they may prefer preparing and cooking food, which is fine, it's not a substantive argument against soylent for those who view eating differently.
The value people get from eating seems a lot fuzzier and humanistic than soylent, which, to me, seems incredibly robotic and rational.
If it's the case that there are other existing solutions that are simultaneously as {cheap, nutritious, tasty, storable} as Soylent, then the problem is marketing. I don't know about them.
If, however, the existing solutions have a major downside (I would assume cost or taste, but could be wrong), then that's the reason. I wouldn't be surprised if there were existing solutions that just aren't catering to the audience of "silicon valley hipster" and therefore simply getting ignored.
According to your link on Plumpy nut, it's only $60 for 2 months for a child. Even though a 280lb. man certainly needs much more than whatever the amount is for starving children, it still sounds like it would be cheaper than I would normally spend on food even if I just bought groceries and never ate out. So... could I eat that food for 2 months straight and be perfectly healthy (assuming I have the willpower)? Could I reasonably use it as a meal replacement whenever I wanted and not have any negative consequences?
No. Of course not. Plumpy'nut is just an example. But there are formulations for people with digestive ailments, military rations, and so on.
Alternatively, it's perfectly possible to design your own "Soylent style" diet, optimising for cost and convenience. I knew of someone (friend of a friend -- a rather eccentric math teacher) who did that many years ago. A large part of his diet was spaghetti and vitamin pills ... not so different from Soylent, really.
Why are you following this story? Why are you voting it up? Do you actually want to buy and eat this nutritionally balanced gruel? Why?