The biggest impact of Soylent, discarding the superstition based approach


#1

It hasn’t occurred to me until I began to use this site and recipe maker how much our cultures do not value precision but rely on randomness for the most important aspect of human life, nutrition.

Imagine if everyone were to use some kind of precise calculation for their food input based on age, height and weight. How many problems would be solved, money, environment and lives saved. The benefits would be gigantic.

Personally, I blame socialized healthcare and the very existence of the state.
It brings so much missed calculation, avoidance of responsibility and corruption of the free market.


#2

well you can’t calculate people. they like their scoff “Free Will” and “instant pleasures”. but it could be good for demanding more from the common food lobby. Call me crazy but I feel like there has been a tremendous fight with the US food lobby to get big corporations to define their food for understanding by the common man. And billions of dollars have passed through lobbyists to fight back too. Maybe millions… Lots of monies at least.
It’s funny. They, big corporations, would rather have $2.50 of mine right now and only now than, make a tasty healthier product and have $2.50 over and over and over and over… etc…

ALL HAIL SOYLENT! who will probably make me live longer and get near all of my food income until the day I keel over!

So long as I don’t keel over in waiting. I’m in pretty awful health. Darn you quick and tasty but awful for you instant foods!!!

I hope that existence of the state thing isn’t important. Im not in a great place to watch a video…


#3

Free market and less regulation for food? You’re trolling right. No industry would benefit from healthy eating habits.


#4

Regulation is the single critical cause of the obesity epidemic in the western world.


#8

Understandable point of view for someone from Croatian, not much for the rest of us


#9

Yes, it is more for the people from US, given their fraudulent monetary system, socialist ravaging of healthcare and higher education.


#10

So, without the government to socialize and encourage poor behaviors, institute idiotic agricultural subsidies, create irrational laws and eliminate personal responsibility, insurance companies would not benefit from people creating healthy habits??
Do you even pay attention to your own thoughts?


#11

Stay nice. As it is, the majority of federal regulation we have now in the united States is the direct result of businesses taking advantage of their freedom to increase profits at the expense of their consumer or work force. I’m a big fan of mostly hands-off capitalism, but laissez faire requires more faith in humanity then I have or find wise.


#12

This thread feels like a giant trap but I have to comment just to laugh at the notion that the US healthcare ‘system’ has been ravaged by socialism. I can’t. I just can’t.

I want to agree with the OP’s main point though about actually controlling out intake, in spite of the blatant political troll


#13

To a degree, yes, but that attitude comes from the circular logic cycle “The corporations are too powerful so we need a more powerful government to regulate the corporations.”

Nevermind that said logic cycle forgets that corporations did not exist in law until government made them an institution. Increasing the power of government proportionally increases the power of the corporations through regulatory capture and the system of legalized bribery known as “campaign funding donations.”


#14

Corporation is a legal fiction constructed and enforced by the government to eliminate personal responsibility.
It wouldn’t and couldn’t exist in the free market, because the free market can only exist in a stateless society that has no central entity involved with creating monopolies and stealing from people through taxation.


#15

What’s the problem exactly?
The pillars of socialism are central banking, taxation and expansion of the government. By creating such enormous regulatory burden it has become increasingly difficult for the private companies to manage healthcare costs, thus the government jumped in to create an additional tax for the problem it created in the first place. Just like it pumped money to render higher education meaningless.

Trust me, I live in Croatia so I know what socialist hell looks like, and USA is heading straight for it.


#16

Without the government, an entity based on violence and theft, there would be no one to take advantage of.
The businesses are just playing the game to survive.

Orderly dissolution of governments is the only long term solution for prosperous, peaceful and successful societies.


#17

That’s what I just said :slight_smile:


#18

OP – have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior of your soul? Asking for a Friend … (Thought this post needed some religion to go along with the politics! :pray:)


#19

Libertarian Christians–that’s the best!


#20

Religion is the biggest, most harmful superstition, after statism.

And I’m anarcho-capitalist, to be more precise, although it is a strain of libertarianism.


#21

I was about to give this topic a very wide berth…

But I have to ask… can you back up such a strong claim with evidence and professionally trusted sources?

I’d like to drop this quote in, though.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

If we were a society that could be trusted to function in a utopian, anarchist society without someone taking advantage of the power vacuum, then we’d already be in one. Humans are, by nature, greedy and selfish individuals. If you succeed in eliminating rule by external forces (read: government), the natural course would inevitably lead to someone finding a way to establish control over others by force (read: dictatorial government).

I’d also like to present that in almost all cases where the rule of law is not present, outside of small and closely knit communities, the result is not true anarchy; the result is the strong prey on the weak.
EDIT: technically, I’ve not researched this claim. So its probably imprudent of me to claim this. However, I know of no non-trivial case where peace as general consensus of behavior is achieved outside the context of some form of external force. If you could present me a non-trivial case (e.g., an existing anarchic society that has last at least two generations with a population above one thousand, without abandoning anarchy) then I would be more willing to take you seriously. But as is, the logistics of human nature seem to preclude the possibility of this occurring.

The purpose of democracies and even feudal systems is to provide protection for the weak. Does it often fail at that purpose? Yes. Can it be corrupted? Of course. All human institutions are prone to human greed and selfishness. An unenforceable anarchy is doomed to be destroyed from the inside. An enforced anarchy is a government, and consequently not anarchy.


#22

That being said, our existing governments are far from ideal. I just don’t think anarchy is a practical alternative to achieving a form of ideal society.

Ideal in a commonly accepted, subjective sense. There’s no such thing as an objective ideal, technically.


#23

I’m not @croatiansoylent, nor am I as decided about my political orientation, but I may be able to help out a little. The classic example which gets brought up frequently (and originally brought up by David Friedman) is Medieval Iceland. People don’t generally say it’s a perfect match, but that it had a lot of features which could show how such a society might function. Here’s a popular, and very biased, rebuttal from a more classical anarchist (possibly interesting reading to see the differences between two very different ends of the anarchy spectrum).

Other similar examples (see Wikipedia and some guy’s blog) are the early American West and the Quakers in 1680’s Pennsylvania. I like the Old West example, because that’s something a lot of people already know about. You’ve got your strong respect for private property (cowboys on their land), decentralized law enforcement (gathering a posse), and still have things like infrastructure, cities, and currency.

This is all from off the top of my head and from a bit of quick googling, but maybe @croatiansoylent could provide some better examples or more details?