= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on [LINK] Soylent crowdfunding - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (169)
Don't these sort of ... cancel each other out?
EDIT: I mean, if we don't know the effects of everything that's in our food right now, how is Soylent any worse?
Only if you think solely in terms of black and white.
We certainly have some idea about what different foods and food components do to us. Sometimes there's a bit more clarity, sometimes much less.
Soylent is worse (in this context) primarily because of lack of diversification. While we don't know the exact details of human nutrition, we know that eating a variety of natural foods is generally OK. That's what humans have evolved to eat, at least. You don't need to know each necessary ingredient as long as you have reason to believe there's some in that diverse pile of stuff.
But Soylent makes a strong assumption: that we know ALL that's necessary for a human to thrive. To flip this statement around, it says that everything that's not in Soylent is not necessary for optimal human nutrition.
That smells of major hubris to me and I'm not going to believe that.
Let's say someone is eating pizza for 20% of their meals. Do you think that replacing pizza with Soylent would result in a worse diet?
Soylent as a supplement and Soylent as a total food replacement are very different things.
Taboo "natural foods" for me, would you?
Foods that have been around long enough that we some idea, possibly simply hermeneuticly, about their effects.
Shouldn't the unit here be the "diet", not the "food"? I mean, physically, what matters is what the body gets out of the whole collection, right?