|
i'd like to see some evidence of confirmation bias and paranoia.
earthly paradise? no. noone claimed that, least of all me. please don't dress up my arguments with superlatives that they don't contain.
i think i did a pretty decent off the cuff job of explaining the benefits of soylent like products. that's all.
-
my argument rests on a very simple premise.
to reduce it in the crudest way possible - in the future we will be doing one of two things.
we'll decide to till fields and raise livestock so we can consume meals of vegetables and meat, because we want to eat potatoes and chicken. why? because we like these things? because of their taste? because they're "natural"?
or
we'll engineer consumable substances in laboratories to the exact nutritional requirements of our bodies.
i know which option seems likely to be more economically efficient, and which option is likely to produce the best taste.
fields and abattoirs vs laboratories and scientists?
and which option which is likely to be healthier?
please tell me the option which is likely to be cheaper, faster, able to feed hungry people better etc. etc.
i think its quite obvious.
this is basically all i'm saying.
-
the idea that in the future you make a meal in order to produce the things which match up to signs like "potato" and "fish" for reasons that aren't fetishistic, archaic, hipsterish or whatever is preposterous.
you make meals based on the interior of the body itself. cos that's where the stuff goes. since soylent is based on our own bodies in a way that fish are not, there is a sense in which its more natural than anything else we eat.
if you want to eat whatever then noones going to stop you. i just want soylent or a product like it to be available to the maximum amount of people
for the minimum price. when people talk shit about it and thereby dissuade people who may not even realize the atrocious state of their nutritional intake, well that pisses me off because it's evil.
-
the things im arguing for here are not propositions i wish the world to accept, they are descriptions of what the future basically has to be like. i'm not even trying to convince anyone, i'm simply trying to realistically side with how history will turn out.
-
as for the remark about "enemies" - there are always enemies of progress. they can throw a spanner in the works but eventually the works crush the spanner and continue turning. these people annoy me and disgust me considering the epidemics of obesity, poverty and the moralization of food. the people that made soylent impressed me. they'll make careers out of a product which actually benefits humanity. one rob rhinehart is worth a thousands whining foodie twats.
the fact that i am obese and die at 33 from a massive heart attack has zero relevance to profiteers who want me to consume their junk NOW.
since we're all in this system, you could say that our health has its enemies and its allies.
nothing has yet to suggest that soylent is an enemy. even if its discovered that a majority soylent diet leads to deficiencies in a certain substance, this substance will thus be incorporated into soylent. that's what's so great about it.
|