Article from the Huffington Post entitled “The Problem With Soylent 2.0 Goes Far Beyond Its Terrible Taste”:
Comments are quite negative, but that is no surprise on such a negative article.
wow, what a ridiculous article. “We are part of nature, so let’s keep killing and destroying it”. Just absurd. And the taste was “bad” for me the first two bottles, now I’m always looking forward for the next. I hate people that use the natural argument, like killing and destroying life is a good thing, or the social argument, like we will never meet other people again because we don’t have to eat. Both absurd arguments that show how much people is embedded in the fantasy world they inherit from society.
Bless you, always posting even the negative articles knowing they might not get very many likes. Well I’m liking it anyway, but from now on you’ll know I’m liking your posting and not the actual article
(though it was probably obvious already)
Edit: I can always tell something is a slam article when there’s excessive quotation marks around things that aren’t actually quotes. In this particular bounty I count at least 6.
I didn’t find it to be a slam article overall. The headline lies, of course, because the article itself doesn’t even say that the taste of Soylent is terrible. It says: “it really is convenient and, if not tasty, palatable.” The article doesn’t even recommend that people shouldn’t drink Soylent. It recommends that people drink it in moderation. If everyone in the US merely drinks Soylent in moderation, I think the company will be happy.
So what’s with the lying headline? When I was an avid HP reader, I noticed that the headlines often grabbed for attention at the expense of scruples, and I decided they were written by unperceptive and poorly trained editors, not necessarily the writers of the articles.
What a useless article. The whole point was that a “professional gardener” didn’t like it?
I want to lodge a complaint. My 2.0 bottles are just plain white, not pearlescent. Where are these pearlescent unicorn bottles the company’s hiding? @Conor?
We had planned to actually use the ground up powder from unicorn horns to make it a magnificent white. How ever none of us saw ‘The Last Unicorn’, so we had no idea how to find the rest of them.
I’m a little bit foggy on my unicorn lore, but it seems to me that a virgin is required to produce that powder, which is definitely a technical limitation.
I think the editors are very perceptive and well-trained, and grabbing attention at the expense of scruples is exactly what they’re going for.
Man, I just got my 2.0 shipment. I had used 1.4 previously for a dozen bags or so.
Am I really the only one that really likes the taste of 2.0? It actually tastes GOOD to me, even the first bottle…
You are from England, as I recall, where such practices are a national tradition, and sometimes the press land in jail because of them.
Which American newspapers or the equivalent do you read regularly?
No, you are most certainly not the only one. The general consensus has been that the taste of 2.0 is much better than any of the previous versions.
In fact, it was a couple of weeks after they had started shipping Soylent 2.0 before I read a single negative comment related to the taste. (out of the many, many that I read here and on reddit)
Obviously nothing is 100%, but I would say that the preference for 2.0’s taste is as universal as could ever be hoped for.
Do not take the above linked article’s title as anything more than the editor’s attempt at click bait.
I bought 24 bottles and have drunk 12 so far, but I just stopped my small subscription to 2.0 and returned to 1.5 because:
The thinness of 2.0 encourages me to drink more than my allocated amount, as does the 400 calorie bottle size.
I find 1.5 more satiating in general than 2.0.
I think 1.5 tastes better than 2.0.
I don’t like the principle of creating as much waste as 2.0 and its bottles creates.
I am used to adding things such as whey powder or simply water to Soylent. The bottles make that a more difficult process.
The price is just too much for my budget.
I sure am! I don’t think anyone’s been jailed here just for writing an attention-grabbing headline yet. But give us time.
I don’t read any American newspapers regularly.
What is he talking about? Soylent 2.0 is delicious. It has a similar taste to milk but more oat-y (Cheerios milk ish), a texture like cream, and the viscosity of a smoothie.
This article is clickbait filth because this is the “problem” mentioned in the headline:
But for Bonnie Blodgett, a professional gardener and columnist for the Pioneer Press in St. Paul, Minnesota, the product poses a deeper societal problem: “Soylent strikes me as just another example of our species’ refusal to see how essential it is that we live with and not against nature,” she told The Huffington Post.
The “problem” with Soylent is that technology is bad and we should strive to live in a more natural state. This objection could apply to literally any technology invented in the last 50,000 years. Gotta get back to the savannah where our only tool is an Acheulean hand axe.
I’d love to see her live “with nature” for longer than a week.
Oregon Trail was a perfect example of what happens when people live “with nature.” Nature kills us. Technology prevents nature from killing us. More advanced technology makes nature work for us, and even more advanced technology makes the world a pretty ok place to live.
“Soylent is the ‘logical,’ ‘science-based’ ultimate solution to the ‘problem’ of eating in an industrialized world in which humans are increasingly allowing themselves to be treated like widgets, not living creatures,” she said. “The industrial model that is destroying our planet denies the essential facts of human life: that we eat not just to survive but to understand and be part of the chain of life.”
What is it with people who act like being logical and science-based is bad? I cannot understand that argument at all. Beyond which, we as a species are fast outpacing the ability for the planet we live on to support us with a varied diet, even if we were vegetarians or god help us, vegans. I wonder what her stance is on eating algae and bugs, since we’re going to have no choice but to incorporate them into our diet soon enough. Also, a professional gardener? Wow, they didn’t even try to find an unbiased source, did they?
Full disclosure: I am not an unbiased critic of this article either, as I think HuffPo is the left wing Faux News. As a left wingnut myself, I still find them entertaining, but I take everything they say with a Cheetos bag worth of salt. Like, a full size Cheetos bag, not those little wee ones.
There was another person who was pretty critical of modern society. He did some things… said some things… now he’s in a supermax prison for life.
To be fair, he went from one of the smartest mathematicians Harvard has ever known to a torture experiment for the CIA. You might go a little crazy after that.
I can find a lot to fault with this article, but I can’t argue with their evaluation of the taste. I tried Soylent 2.0, it tasted miserable. I’m trying Biolent now, and the flavor is much superior; somewhere between pancake batter and cookie dough. I much prefer it to cheerio-flavored reclaimed water.