All this talk about liquid food as a holy grail to pursue is intruiging but I wonder, what harm does it do to the teeth, oral flora and digestive system if they have nothing to 'chew' on? Just like our body slowly atrophies when we sit to much and move to little, perhaps our body needs the traditional 'holistic' form of food (not necessarily including raw food)?
<i>> Also, society is conditioned to believe there is something objectionable about the poor being made to drink a tasteless subsidized potion because they cannot afford the other kind of good food. There are movies in which people consuming tasteless but utilitarian nutrition is depicted as evidence of dystopia.</i><p>It seems conspicuous that it wasn't mentioned that Soylent is the namesake of one of those movies. Is it assumed that most NYT readers will make / have already made the association?
> <i>Also, society is conditioned to believe there is something objectionable about the poor being made to drink a tasteless subsidized potion because they cannot afford the other kind of good food.</i><p>Others might object to a mandated government subsidy for a product without relevant prior analysis of the existing market for minimum-cost diets (e.g., determining the cost of the Stigler Diet for the region).
That idea that a selection of vitamins and minerals, et al. can replace traditional food has largely been debunked, for the current state of the art at least. Perhaps in the future, but based on our current knowledge base we can not yet replace traditional food with synthesized pills and powder for the majority of one's natural life. We still do not know all of the nutritional elements of some of the most basic fruits we pick up every day in our grocery store. If you don't believe me (I wouldn't, who am I?) check out the book below. The author has been in the field for decades, well published, studied both reductionist and wholistic approaches to nutrition.<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t-colin-campbell/whole-book-excerpt-_b_3308560.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t-colin-campbell/whole-book-ex...</a>
I got some Soylent for my earthquake supplies, its shelf stable and nicer than the 3kCal US Coast Guard biscuit rations. Are their disaster kits in India? Something to tide you over until the systems reboot sufficiently ?
> Ever since an American electrical engineer invented a food that abolishes the inconveniences of foraging and cooking, and contains all the nutrition a human body is known to require but is devoid of the substances that harm, there has been talk that it can end not only the problems of the overfed but also the underfed. After all, it is in the tradition of Silicon Valley-blessed projects to invent a solution for the rich that eventually “makes the world a better place,” to borrow an expression used by tech billionaires and comedians.<p>Jesus fucking christ.<p>1) Soylent didn't invent anything. Complete liquid meals have been around for many years.<p>2) No one credible suggest soylent is useful to end world hunger. It's too expensive; it has the wrong nutrient balance; it's made in the wrong place; it requires too much clean water; it's worse than the existing emergency food products in many different ways.
For the starving poor - it is too expensive.<p>For the tasteful rich - it is too bland.<p>For the average house - it is too unlike a home-cooked meal.<p>For programmers being used as disposable slaves - it's perfect! Less time eating, more time programming.