The biggest impact of Soylent, discarding the superstition based approach


Thank’s for the links. I’ll have to set aside some time to check them out…


You should watch this video on how astonishingly corrupt USA government is. Even Croatian socialist bandits are not that blatant about it, not to mention they don’t go around wrecking the whole Middle East(Gaddafi, Hussein and arming Islamic barbarians against Assad) with stolen tax money.


About statism killing 260 million people in the last century and causing both world wars(the first one lasted 4 years instead of the expected 1 due to central banking, which set the conditions for WWII)?


Actually, that was a joke, but thanks for your opinion. As long as people fail to see that we indeed are not separate from one another and are one organic whole, it doesn’t matter what fucking sociopolitical structure we live under, we are still going to crash and burn. This is a spiritual crisis (and I don’t mean religious), not a political crisis. In the US, we are all about individual freedom and we don’t give a shit about social responsibility, and the results are proving to be spectacular: grab some popcorn and soylent, sit back, and watch the show.


Actually, it’s the Boomers that fucked things up beyond repair (I am one). I am very impressed with the new crop of millenials coming up and have real hope for them. Boomers need to get off the field. I’ll go now …


I would have to say, no, that’s not what I was referring to. Especially in light of the fact that I quoted the specific part I wanted. But, mobile might handle quotes differently, I can’t remember. The statement I wanted evidence for was that “religion is the biggest, most harmful superstition, after statism”.


What a fantastic thread, I haven’t seen this much idealism since Woodstock. I applaud livingparadox’s rational worldview, and I agree that an anarcho-capitalist society would fall utterly short of utopia. What may have worked famously in medieval Iceland might go completely sideways if you add automobiles, smartphones, and Internet.

My faith in humanity is shaken regularly, but I still have it. There are plenty of rotten people out there, and capitalism can drive even decent people to greedy opportunism, but I think that if you make everyone equal then the vast majority will be good human beings. The problem is getting there without turning to socialism.

The only way to get there is to solve every single technical hurdle of living, repair our planet, and set forth automatons to cleanly yield resources so abundant that money becomes obsolete. It’s a tall order to say the least, but I think Soylent technology is a good start. Imagine what a billion happy, productive Soylent drinkers could accomplish.


Yeah, sorry, there will always be people who desire more than others simply for the sake of having more, and that means the most clever , ruthless, or persistent of the breed will be able to disrupt any utopia. It’s not human nature, it’s the nature of the universe.


Exactly why I’ve given it such a wide berth :wink:


“I, for one, welcome our computer overlords…”

A fun quote from Ken Jennings who was the top Jeopardy winner. He wrote this after his final answer after being soundly beaten by Watson (the IBM “artificial intelligence”).

I have always thought the Benign Dictatorship was the best form of government if you could find the right person. There is an exceedingly small number of people who could make it work. AI is the only answer I have hope for. People suck (including myself).


Yeah, that works for about the length of time the first dictator maintains power and ends the moment the second dictator fills his place.

I’m going to assume you’ve read Robert Heinlein though, since he makes the same argument multiple times


I agree completely. I think the odds of the son of a Benign Dictator would probably not be a good leader. And people aren’t smart enough to pick a good leader.

I’ve read a bunch of Heinlein. I loved “Stranger in a Strange Land” a couple times. Loved it.

I really only posted to get the Jennings quote in. :smile:


In “Time Enough for Love” the problem of the benevolent dictatorship is solved by the fact that pretty much everyone lives forever, so the good ones live for generations while the bad ones are overthrown relatively quickly :stuck_out_tongue:

“Stranger in a Strange Land” was one of those books that could be life changing if you got your hands on it in the formative years


“Sorry” but you missed the point entirely. How can one person take from another if everyone has everything and needs nothing? How does the construct of greed emerge with no underlying concept of possession? The entirety of human history has been clouded by conflict over resources, so what happens in a world where resources are no longer an issue?

I don’t think utopia is impossible, only that the challenges in getting there are more technical than philosophical. We absolutely won’t get there with dismissive, defeatist, cynical attitudes and assumptions that we are all destined to screw ourselves into oblivion.


Well I agree with your point if we can get to such a world. But with growing population and dwindling resources I’m not sure it’s a technical solution we are looking for. It strikes me that a philosophical shift or at least societal shift in how we look at reproduction and consumption is either going to be adopted willingly or forced upon us by external realities.


But what isn’t technical about it? Rob solved a technical problem when he hacked nutrition and now anyone can make their own People Chow, reaping the benefits of an optimal diet for dirt cheap. The more brilliant, inspired people open-source their ideas, the closer we get.


There’s no such thing as resources never being an issue. There will always be varying levels of possession, whether its material wealth, intellectual wealth, or otherwise. The construct of greed arises because ownership of wealth is perceived as deserved for one reason or another.

Unless you have a society with a shared mind and instant execution of any entity that strays from the collective, you’re going to have multiple independent intelligent perspectives, and the differences inevitably result in conflict, whether disagreements over understandings of situations, mistaken beliefs, or deliberate antagonism

Frankly, I want nothing to do with any sort of Utopia. I exist and live my life for myself and that which I find valuable. That, unfortunately, means I’m willing to run some people off the road if it means protecting me and mine. I will initiate conflict to obtain personal happiness.

It’s not cynicism, it’s a recognition that even though I exist in a world with other people, ultimately I will take what I want and pay for it in time or blood. Anything less is cheating myself.

It’s not a problem of human nature, it’s a feature of intelligence.


Obligatory link to Marshall Brain’s Manna -


@livingparadox, on the topic of religion and it’s effects, this is an excellent book on this topic, and is well researched.

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason


Again, you’re making dark assumptions and forecasting. And utopia doesn’t mean that everyone hugs and agrees with each other every waking moment, it just means that we are stable, free of poverty and man-made crisis. But have fun running people off the road, I’ll just stick to being a decent person.


I blame the “free market” for filling our shelves with nutrition-less foods and marketing lies designed to make people think unhealthy shit is good for them.

Also, I love socialized healthcare. I lived in Canada for a year and I got better healthcare there than I ever have in the US. People there were a lot less fat than they are in the US. There were still fat people, sure, but I didn’t see nearly as many “so fat I have to use a rascal scooter instead of walking” people there.

So, uhh, you’re wrong.