"Our Food Critic Subsisted Mainly on Soylent for a Month, and He’d Probably Do It Again"


“Literally the worst thing about subsisting on Soylent is having to smile politely at smug people who believe themselves to be cultural literati because they saw a Charlton Heston movie. But there’s a deep irony to how hard they miss.”


Loved this article for multiple reasons:

  1. Was not a “I ate only Soylent even when other people had good-smelling food around” article. Instead, this was a realistic portrayal of how Soylent could be used, and the author mentioned how they would be continuing with Soylent (e.g. breakfast). I’m so tired of the interns forced to eat Soylent only for 30 days, despite the fact that many Soylent customers eat Soylent on a 30%, 50%, 75%, 90% basis, not 100%

  2. Well-written

  3. The amazing quote about the movie (see Ric above). Such a pet peeve when I read articles or check out the comments sections and they are making lame jokes about people.

  4. Realistic look comparing the organic/anti-GMO crowd vs reality.


I really liked this comment he made:

Rhinehart imagines a world in which it’s a “civil resource” that comes through pipes into your house, like water.

Does that sound sad and terrible? Well, how do you think it sounds to a kid who goes to bed hungry? One in six of them do.

Really a thorn in the side to the doom and gloom portrayal food purists give.

I also liked his comment about how he appreciated food even more when he ate when he wanted. Doing it recreationally instead of forcefully.


We don’t need that massive new infrastructure. Delivery (ideally via drones) is sufficient while we wait for our in-home bioreactors. Btw, imagine the mold in the Soylent pipes.

1 Like

I think they’d just pump nanobots along with it to keep the pipes clean then the nanobots would hose us out as well.

1 Like

Can I request a double helping of nanobots, please?

1 Like