It's only a problem if it harms a human suddenly and irreversibly. I'm guessing that anyone who was suffering problems from a dietary change would have time to correct.
Show me some evidence or even some indication that Soylent will result in an irreversible and sudden decline in health.
I'm guessing that you won't, or can't.
Your argument is "We don't know, so let's not risk it". The risk here is minimal. If it fails to live up to the hype, it's reversible.
> Show me some evidence or even some indication that Soylent will result in an irreversible and sudden decline in health.
> If it fails to live up to the hype, it's reversible.
Once again, demanding evidence that something is unsafe instead of providing evidence that it is not, then in the same breath taking that it is not for granted.
Is that all you are wired to do? It's like what I'm saying is going in one ear and coming out the other.
To be fair, it is "startup hackathon culture" to think like this.
If you build software that doesn't work, people get pissed off and yell at you on web-forums... but in the great scheme of things that's not a big deal.
The main downside is that once you leave software, startup culture becomes incredibly dangerous. If you build an airplane that "doesn't work", people die. If you build a train that "doesn't work", the train crashes into a building and people die. If you build a bridge that doesn't work... people die.
And of course, when it comes to Soylent... if you build a food process that can be infested with diseases, or leave out important dietary nutrition in a particular diet... people can die.
We have all this discussion talking about the diet side of things, but little discussion on the practicality of storage, or whether or not it needs to be refrigerated.
Absolutely agree, it definitely is "startup hackathon culture".
Well, that combined with typical SV engineer hubris. Being bright in your field and well paid does not mean that you can be the master of any field. Some engineering disciplines require tighter tolerances. Some fields, particularly those that use human subjects, have much tighter ethical and safety requirements.
It seems as though being immersed in SV startup culture for too long can render somebody literally unable to comprehend the notion of more stringent requirements and regulations existing.
That's the thing, absent any negative information a dietary change shouldn't need rigourous proof. Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress. If it doesn't work for them, then they can stop using it. How hard is that? How is that breaking anyone?
I don't treat human life lightly. You're just treating a dietary change too heavily.
> It's like what I'm saying is going in one ear and coming out the other.
I was just about to say the same of you. I'm done here.
Mono-nutrition is known to have negative health effects.
And there is clear evidence of trial-and-error that has resulted in short-term health effects due to initial versions of Soylent. Longer term effects would not have been identified and so remain a very high risk.
From wikipedia:
Modifications to the ingredient list have occurred in response to results incurred in testing, for example: the first version of the formula omitted iron, which caused Rhineheart to report his heart had begun to race.[8] In other early experiments, intentionally induced overdoses of potassium and magnesium gave Rhinehart cardiac arrhythmia and burning sensations.[8] After the early recipe had stabilized, Rhinehart found himself suffering from joint pain due to a sulfur deficiency. Methylsulfonylmethane was added to address this problem
> Unless there's any indication that Soylent will do irreparable damage from day 1, I see no good reason for an individual not to try it and monitor their progress.
You are demonstrating a very basic failure to analyze risk, understand the variety of medical risks that can be posed by experimental diets, and indeed understand the concerns that other people are raising (the concern is not that you will die after drinking it three times in a row.....).
the human body can adapt to bad nutrition for a long time. Everything will be fine until its not.
What if Soylent increases the risk of some form of cancer or some long term damage to the liver of other organs ? You wont know until its too late.
You want people to prove that Soylent is bad, but instead the Soylent team needs to proof that Soylent is good! And a couple of dozen reviews from people using it for a month does not prove anything.
Show me some evidence or even some indication that Soylent will result in an irreversible and sudden decline in health.
I'm guessing that you won't, or can't.
Your argument is "We don't know, so let's not risk it". The risk here is minimal. If it fails to live up to the hype, it's reversible.