Both nutrition and pecuniary economics are far more complex then Soylent and Bitcoin allow for -- additionally, the history of both of these fields is seeded with innumerable failures to couch each of their fundamentals in terms of simple concepts (for nutrition: protien/fats/carbs, vitamins, micronutrents, and so on -- for economics, Smith, Marx, Keynes, Laffer, et cetera). The idea that either, as a phenomenological consequence of human interaction, has a simple solution is technically possible but foolhardy.
I don't deny that there may be a food that is easy to make but perfect for humans; or that there may be such a currency as well. But for any rational actor to believe it would require not only extraordinary evidence, but specific refutations of the previous failed attempts (rather, the theory would provide those refutations). Such a failure to both acknowledge and rebut historical failures in the same vein is strong evidence of crankism/crankitude/crankosity/I Can't Believe They're Not A Crank.
Somewhat ironically, the foodstuff I might be most inclined to believe would satisfy this requirement is exactly what "soylent" should be -- complete raw human. Om nom nom.
I don't deny that there may be a food that is easy to make but perfect for humans; or that there may be such a currency as well. But for any rational actor to believe it would require not only extraordinary evidence, but specific refutations of the previous failed attempts (rather, the theory would provide those refutations). Such a failure to both acknowledge and rebut historical failures in the same vein is strong evidence of crankism/crankitude/crankosity/I Can't Believe They're Not A Crank.
Somewhat ironically, the foodstuff I might be most inclined to believe would satisfy this requirement is exactly what "soylent" should be -- complete raw human. Om nom nom.