[enraged_camel]

>>I say nutritional science is still in the dark ages and therefore we don't have evidence to conclude a pile of molecules is the same as traditional food

What you say is wrong, though. We have a pretty good understanding of how food works and what our bodies need. How do you think hospitals feed comatose patients? They do it either via a feeding tube (liquid food), or through an IV (fluids containing glucose, salts, amino acids, lipids and micronutrients).

[dasil003]

Everything is relative. What you need to survive short-term is much easier to understand then the long-term effects of subtle dietary differences. The core of my point is that treating a pile of molecules as the same as food is not scientifically sound reasoning "from first principles".

[enraged_camel]

>>The core of my point is that treating a pile of molecules as the same as food is not scientifically sound reasoning "from first principles"

Here is what Elon Musk said about batteries when asked to give an example of his first-principles thinking:

Somebody could say, “Battery packs are really expensive and that’s just the way they will always be… Historically, it has cost $600 per kilowatt hour. It’s not going to be much better than that in the future.”

With first principles, you say, “What are the material constituents of the batteries? What is the stock market value of the material constituents?”

It’s got cobalt, nickel, aluminum, carbon, some polymers for separation and a seal can. Break that down on a material basis and say, “If we bought that on the London Metal Exchange what would each of those things cost?”

It’s like $80 per kilowatt hour. So clearly you just need to think of clever ways to take those materials and combine them into the shape of a battery cell and you can have batteries that are much, much cheaper than anyone realizes.”

--

Thinking of batteries as being made of cobalt, nickel, aluminum etc. is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as thinking of food as being made of proteins, fats, carbs, etc. There isn't anything special about a piece of chicken - it's a combination of molecules, some of which are digestible by the human body, i.e. nutrients. Therefore, taking those nutrients and putting them into a meal replacement shake is perfectly fine. And incidentally, just like in Musk's example, treating the nutrients individually and assembling them into a shake results in much cheaper food.

[mark_edward]

Cheaper food? Are you serious? Soylent is not cheap, not at all. It's much more expensive than the average diet, let alone low-cost options.

[enraged_camel]

Soylent costs $1.93 per meal:

https://www.soylent.com/product/powder/

That's pretty damn cheap, especially compared to the "average diet", which consists of eating out on a regular basis.

[kuschku]

The average person eats out for birthdays and anniversaries, not more.

And Soylent is at least 40% more expensive than even buying freerange organic food to make your own meals.

Which is insane for the horrible quality it has.

[enraged_camel]

Average American spends $150 per week on food. Among young adults, this number is $173. That comes down to $21-24 per day.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156416/americans-spend-151-week-f...

Soylent costs $1.93 per meal, which comes down to $5.79 per day. In other words, about a quarter of the average daily spend.

I'm also not sure where you came up with "horrible quality." Care to qualify - or better yet, quantify - that claim?

As for eating out, another survey in 2013 showed that 58% of Americans eat out at least once a week. That's way higher than you claim.

http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/gener...

[aianus]

Soylent doesn't compete with the 'average diet', it competes with eating out 2-3 times a day. I personally save hundreds of dollars a month with Soylent.