We eat food/have sex for (among others) one or more of the following reasons: 1. fitness purposes (very roughly speaking, ensuring survival/reproduction), 2. hedonic purposes (very roughly speaking, relieving hunger/horniness), 3. eudaimonic purposes (very roughly speaking, enjoying great food/sex). Masturbation (incl. using dolls) only achieves 2, in-vitro fertilization only achieves 1 (well, actually 2 too when you gather the sperm to be used), and protected sex achieves 2 and 3 but not 1; with food the difference between 1 and 2 is less clear-cut, but IIUC foods with much more fructose than fibre can provide energy without really satiating you and vice versa, so we can say that eating dessert when you're not really hungry (and not trying to gain weight) achieves 3 but not 2. Soylent achieves 1 and 2, so it's kind-of analogous to masturbating and using the semen for IVF.
But analogies are like ropes: if you pull them too far they will break down.
Oh dear. It's funny how an inferential distance can pop up in the simplest things.
OK, let's me get explicit then.
The main parallel between Soylent and blow-up dolls lies within the concept of impoverished experience.
Food and sex have the capability of being very rich, deep, complex, engaging, intense experiences. There is potential for much, from simple sensual pleasures to complicated philosophies. It seems a waste to give up on such richness in favor of satisfying only the lowest, crudest demands of your body so that it would just shut up and go away.
Previous Open Thread
You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one.
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.