|
|
|
It's very expensive for now anyway, and not cheaper than "real" food. The aim is to get it cheaper over time.
You also seem to be forgetting a couple of things about "real" food in the third world. Things like large areas of land with poor transport and other links, and no "production lines" for most people and most foods. Transporting some powder is a lot easier and more efficient than transporting crates of unprocessed food for the simple fact it takes up a minimum amount of space, there's no water weight and it's already processed which means no "unnecessary" bits like inedible parts.
A lot of crops are also cash crops, which don't help much for feeding people. And you don't seem to understand Africa (as one example of a third world region) and the food situation there.
http://thinkafricapress.com/agriculture/betting-farm-africas-drive-food-self-sufficiency
After half a century of independence, Africa remains dependent on food imports unable to feed its people on domestic production alone. And escalating food costs have pushed levels of import expenditure to breaking point.
You are also ignoring nutritional value. Sure, Africans might be able to grow some crops, but can they grow enough and sufficient variety of crops to provide the relevant nutrients for their diet?
You seem to think Soylent is bad and would never work on the basis that food supplies in (as an example) Africa are cheap, plentiful and cover all the necessary food groups and have sufficient nutritional value to meet the populations needs. And that the food can be transported and distributed efficiently and effectively.
None of those things are true. Therefore your conclusion is bunk.
|
On August 17 2014 18:59 Lonyo wrote:It's very expensive for now anyway, and not cheaper than "real" food. The aim is to get it cheaper over time. You also seem to be forgetting a couple of things about "real" food in the third world. Things like large areas of land with poor transport and other links, and no "production lines" for most people and most foods. Transporting some powder is a lot easier and more efficient than transporting crates of unprocessed food for the simple fact it takes up a minimum amount of space, there's no water weight and it's already processed which means no "unnecessary" bits like inedible parts. A lot of crops are also cash crops, which don't help much for feeding people. And you don't seem to understand Africa (as one example of a third world region) and the food situation there. http://thinkafricapress.com/agriculture/betting-farm-africas-drive-food-self-sufficiencyShow nested quote +After half a century of independence, Africa remains dependent on food imports unable to feed its people on domestic production alone. And escalating food costs have pushed levels of import expenditure to breaking point. You are also ignoring nutritional value. Sure, Africans might be able to grow some crops, but can they grow enough and sufficient variety of crops to provide the relevant nutrients for their diet? You seem to think Soylent is bad and would never work on the basis that food supplies in (as an example) Africa are cheap, plentiful and cover all the necessary food groups and have sufficient nutritional value to meet the populations needs. And that the food can be transported and distributed efficiently and effectively. None of those things are true. Therefore your conclusion is bunk.
Well...it might be easier to sent powder to those people..but its not the job of the western world to provide food for third world countries..the only real solution would be to help african countries be self substainable...one of the problems is also, and not only in africa, but also asian countries that most people move to big cities leaving behind their farming communities, in essence making the problems worse. Its their government's job to encourage agriculture. I think soylent isnt as big as some try to prove, its an overrated product (and one that has been around for a long time, so neither is it innovative)..and sure, it might be great as temporary relief in for example disaster situations, it is not a long term solution. Also, as it is now, soylent is so expensive that the people who really need food are never able to buy it. It goes for 70 dollar for a week of supplies? In nepal i had a full course at a restaurant (which is to expensive for the natives, so that is saying something...) for only 1.30 euro...so just saying... they would drastically need to cut costs, unless its purpose is to give it away for free as part of charity, but you cant run a business like that.
|
There are some recipes for homemade soylent that may be a bit cheaper than the real thing.
From what I've seen, soylent is mainly for those too busy to eat real food that can afford the stuff, not starving third world people. It's mainly a convenience thing for those in the first world, and from what I've read, that's not necessarily a bad idea.
|
On August 17 2014 19:13 eviltomahawk wrote:
There are some recipes for homemade soylent that may be a bit cheaper than the real thing.
From what I've seen, soylent is mainly for those too busy to eat real food that can afford the stuff, not starving third world people. It's mainly a convenience thing for those in the first world, and from what I've read, that's not necessarily a bad idea.
Yea ok...im sure there is a market for that...but honestly..if you dont have time to make proper food...i think you need to rethink your life...unless your in the army or something ;D...but thats just me..
Still..when i read some things at the soylent forum..its crazy how people worship the product, and not just that...they also seem to feel superiour and above those who are skeptic about it :/
|
"Soylent" ends up having a combination of Hipsterness, old science and "I want to run a start-up!" Silicon Valley-itis to it.
I can appreciate a lot of the concept, but unless they've changed the formula since I last took a look at it back in March (a friend ordered some), the eventual nerve damage is going to be the source of lawsuits for those that insist on using it as their only food.
Still, it's pretty much just a hipster meal-replacement drink. So, Hipsters will drink Soylent and people that need hip replacements will drink Ensure.
|
^wat nerve damage? Also, I don't see how the name of the brand affects the actual product. I've never tried Soylent, but that seems like a weird nitpick by those desperate to look for flaws in the concept.
|
I just want food replicator technology.
|
On August 18 2014 02:38 ThomasjServo wrote:
I just want food replicator technology.
soon....with the power of 3d printing :D.....that as compared to soylent is actually pretty cool...even if its only because they did it in star trek :D......
Our quest to make star trek reality is something that will benefit everyone.....hot vulcan females...here we come :D
|
|
|
Confused because I thought you meant Soylent, the Mechanical Turk plugin for MS Word
|
the nutritional value of that is horrible
seems like a great way to getting fat
|
|
|
Friend of mine has been drinking his own soylent mix for serveral months. He used the normal soylent recipe as a base, then changed some ingredients to make it cheaper and taste better, but still have the same nutrition. He's very happy with it, saying that he feels more healthy and vital and that he needs less sleep.
I tried his soylent for 2 weeks straight and I quite liked it, because it pretty much tastes like chocolate milk, but also gives a pleasant full feeling.
I paid him 1Euro per meal, so that's 3 Euros per day, including some bonus vitamin supplements. Can't get much cheaper than that and recently they've found multi resistant bacteria in vacuum sealed marinated meat in Germany, so affordable meat (for a student like me) can be quite disgusting.
I'm honestly thinking about switching to self-produced soylent now.
|
On August 18 2014 08:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
the nutritional value of that is horrible
seems like a great way to getting fat
Compared to 66% of the developed world's population (especially in the US), their diets are abysmal anyway, so having something that's attempting to be somewhat nutritionally balanced is likely to be far superior to what they are eating normally, and a lot better/simpler for things like portion control.
It's not a case of Soylent vs ideal diet. It's Soylent vs the diet that has led to most Americans being overweight or obese. And in that fight, it's the hands-down victor.
|
On August 19 2014 03:59 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 08:57 GoTuNk! wrote:
the nutritional value of that is horrible
seems like a great way to getting fat Compared to 66% of the developed world's population (especially in the US), their diets are abysmal anyway, so having something that's attempting to be somewhat nutritionally balanced is likely to be far superior to what they are eating normally, and a lot better/simpler for things like portion control. It's not a case of Soylent vs ideal diet. It's Soylent vs the diet that has led to most Americans being overweight or obese. And in that fight, it's the hands-down victor.
If you are gonna eat 60% carb 20% fat you might as well enjoy ice creams 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
