[hueving]

Evolution has only selected for diets that get you to reproduction. Those have very little overlap with what make you live well into your 80s+.

Your appeal to nature holds as much weight as the soylent science when it comes down to it. The only constant in the human diet is change. What our ancestors ate even 500 years ago has very little overlap with what we even consider "traditional food" now.

[chillacy]

I think there's an argument that a society which only makes it to reproduction and not much longer wouldn't last very long compared to one which has enough old people to help raise the kids (after all that is one of the theories as to why we even live to 80+ in the first place).

But yea, agreed that the types of foods we're eating have changed and continue to change, and thus far the driver of change is not our design, but rather market forces and consumer demand. I think something like soylent is a step in the right direction, even if it's risky in a way that any new science is risky (consider how we were using X-rays when we first discovered them for trying on shoes, before we knew the harm).