[ryukafalz]

It could also be useful in developing nations where access to food isn't as prevalent as it is in first-world countries.

Pleasurable or not, Soylent does offer huge value in these situations simply in that it's a way to not die.

[stormbrew]

I have serious doubts that soylent will ever be a viable tool for this. It keeps getting brought up, but soylent is actually an extremely expensive way to feed poor people, and if they don't have access to clean water it's probably actually an expensive way to poison them, a-la baby formula [1].

Just because it's cheap for people in the first world doesn't mean it's cheap for people in the third world. It's really important to remember that.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-scanda...

[gfodor]

Prices change. Economies of scale.

Also if they don't have access to clean water they have bigger problems than access to food.

[stormbrew]

I replied to you on economies of scale elsewhere. I don't see how they could ever be in favour of soylent vs. soy or rice.

And yes, they do have bigger problems. And yet access to food is still one of their problems. And giving them food that needs water added doesn't help them.

[aianus]

They must be getting water (dirty or otherwise) from somewhere or they'd already be dead. I fail to see how mixing that water with Soylent leaves them worse off.

Furthermore, there's no reason Soylent can't be baked into a solid form and distributed/eaten that way.

[jacalata]

if there's no reason, then why isn't that already an option?

[gamblor956]

People in developing nations can eat for an entire week or more on $3. Soylent's got a long way to go before it's anything more than an overpriced meal replacement shake.

It's not even a disruptive product--there have been similar meal replacement shakes available at Whole Foods for many years now, at similarly outrageous prices. Soylent's innovation is its marketing--especially in identifying and chasing its target market.

[mrobert]

>People in developing nations can eat for an entire week or more on $3.

I live in a third world country and I buy from the market at really low prices. At first this $3 figure seemed off the mark, but upon further consideration it's true, you could live on that much for a while at market prices.

But it means a couple of bowls of rice and a small quantity of nutrient-unknown vegetables, with a few bites of some D-grade, fatty bony meat to live on less than $0.50 a day of food. Obviously, this is going to lead to malnourishment and an early death if they can't supplement with something else.

Lots of people keep small farm animals for an easy boost. A neighbor of mine had a 2-year old dog that started to eat her own chickens. After trying to correct the dog's behavior, it didn't work, so they killed the dog, cooked it and offered me some (I didn't bite, but it was considerate of them.)

Perspective.

[gfodor]

What other meal replacement products? There are plenty of supplements but are there other products that claim to give you 100% of your necessary nutrition with 3 daily servings?

[gamblor956]

Garden of Life and Shakeology are the two big ones I remember off the top of my head. There are more. Google is your friend. (https://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+meal+replacement+shake)

[ceejayoz]

Yes, there are. My daughter required a nasal feeding tube for about a year and subsisted primarily on Pediasure. Plenty of sick adults receive nutrition in a similar manner.

[DanBC]

This question has been asked, and answered, in every Soylent thread.

Here is one manufacturer. http://abbottnutrition.com/brands/abbott-brands

[DanBC]

Someone always mentions developing world.

Soylent needs clean water and currently costs a couple of hundred dollars per month.

20% of the world's population live on less than $1.25 per day. About one billion people lack access to clean water.

http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/home

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/mdg1/en/index.htm...

The World Food Programme already has a range of products to use for develping nations. See their information, especially the pricing, here.

https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...

https://www.wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products

"Fights world hunger" is just another claim made by Soylent in apparent ignorance of what already exists.

[dragonwriter]

No, it doesn't. Soylent doesn't solve the social problems of distribution, which are the real problems in developing nations.

[ceejayoz]

People in developing nations can not-die for a lot less than $3/serving.

[ekianjo]

Oh, come on. Mass starvation is really something of the past. And developing nations are not going to want something like that, the more traditional the culture, the more they value real food. Plus, with real food you actually force people to spend time on making vegetables and growing them, Soylent just makes you a consumer and nothing else.

[DanBC]

Hunger and malnutrition are not in the past. Soylent won't help those, but the World Food Programme has extensive schemes to supply fortified foods.

http://wfp.org/our-work

http://wfp.org/hunger

[ekianjo]

I was not talking about hunger. I specifically said "mass starvation". Don't tell me there has not been any progress since the 80s, because there certainly was a lot happening since then and it's very rare to hear about mass starvation these days (except when they are created by conflicts).

[pjc50]

Mass starvation is nearly always the result of conflict or political issues that prevent food being routed to the area of starvation (see Amartya Sen on the subject).

The famous Ethiopian famine was the direct result of a war.