What about the money?


I don’t want to set any conspiracy mood around or anything. In fact, I want to be the most objective as possible. I mean, we can see some cases. The most famouse being Tesla with his free energy for the world, not trying to set any conspiracy mood as I said, let’s supossed free alternative energy is actually impossible to generate: well, still, he still got really fucked by the “competition”.

Another case more recently, Benito Muros, the guy with the eternal bulb form OEP Electrics. He made a bulb that last forever, tested and everything and suddenly people start menacing over the internet and the phone. Companies and governments threathing him with total ruin if he didn’t stop his project. Why? Money.

If this work, do you realize what could happend with the world? No more food? I mean, I don’t expect everybody to drink this, as many people will go for food for any kind of prejudice. But still…

I mean, you thin Monsanto, Nestle, all those companies, the most larger and powerfull multinationals of the world will just sit around, watching how their stock on Wall Street goes to the ground? I mean, really? Monsanto is like the devil company of food company. Not even McDonalds is that evil. I mean, come on. We all read those stuff. We read the real stuff, the conspiracy shit, the cientific BS, everything. We cannot oversee that. So I ask again, what will you do when they knock at your door and want to buy the company for a high price that will make their eyes shine? What will happen when they start to sue you over some crappy statements or just pay a lot of money to make some law that regulate or make it very hard to produce or whatever… I mean, I’m just speaking shit that comes to my mind. My english is not even that good to make such an extense argument (my native language is spanish). So, really, taking what I just said and what we all know, what then? This is the only thing that make me skeptical. The nonprofit BS… well is BS. Is not going to survive that way. If government help them in ANY way, they will want to be a part of the development and they’re going to regulate it somehow for their benefit. And is just no way other multinationals are going to let this go further… so what then?


I have been wondering from the beginning when this would be realised, taken seriously and discussed. Tu tienes toda la razón, Gabriel Alejandro, y Rob tendrá que enfrentarse con este problema. Me da miedo.


What makes you think Soylent Corporation is a non-profit? They mention wanting to do good in the world, but I’m pretty sure non-profits don’t usually start with the founders calling themselves C-level executives and VP’s.


How about we cross that bridge when we get there?


Also, researched this Benito Muros guy. Something’s odd, not sure what. If companies threatened people left and right the likes of Google, which started as two guys with a couple of i386 computers, would never exist.


At this point it doesn’t really matter all that much if the company itself is bought up and killed off, the idea’s been planted and is growing. As long as the idea of Soylent gets CC licensed other people will be able to mass-distribute it and even if it isn’t, we can still share our own formulae and make it for personal use – P2P foodsharing.


I agree LdHenryWotton. My formula now isn’t perfect, and it probably never will be, and it also uses a lot of pre-made supplements. That is mainly because I know the real stuff will be coming in a couple of months. With that being said if something were to happen to the real stuff then I would start up my own research, heck I bet most people on here would begin crowd sourcing their knowledge to rebuild what Rob built.

I’ve always had the idea of a food that was simple and contained exactly what the body needed. I always assumed it was going to be in pill form taken once a day, but oh well. Rob has taken what I always thought of and made it tangible. If I could have conceived of the possibility back in the day then I would have started my own research, but it was just a pipe dream to me. Now it is real, which means no matter what I will see it or something similar to it through.

Pandora’s box has been opened and there is no going back.


To echo @LdHenryWotton, Soylent is open source and we are the community that will carry it on. There are recipes, apps, and other sundries out there. Effectively, if the movement is large enough, it cannot be stopped.

The company itself is for-profit, and I’m pretty sure that they will act more as a broker of information and the leading edge of recipe experimentation, but they have made it so there can be no stranglehold on the product itself.


I’m not saying is not NOW. But it CAN’T BE in the future. At least not in the usual ONG’s way. Why? Becouse a corporation of ANY size NEEDS capital so they can grow. If they expect this to grow in the future to something that actually help people, not only in the USA, but for saying, Africa, they can’t be a non-profit becouse they can’t relay always on donations. Or else, they’re going to turn this into a casual thing, like Green Peace, they start with this sense of awesomenss and where are they know? Just a bunch of geeks playing to save the world. I give you the point, non-profit organizations don’t ever start with executives, but they would have to change the entire paradigma of money and corporations to keep as a non-profit organization and STILL do this at the level we all expect. And that’s precisely my point. There is no way, no matter how you decide to see this, there is no way other corporations are going to let them do this becouse it can change the world and that would be against the status quo and that… well. You know what that means to a conservative right?


Google had MONEY write in the face, even when it wasn’t more than just a kindergardens algorithm. And there was no other competition for that specifically. There where no other search engines that worked the way Google work. The algorithm made the work, there was nothing to do for competition at that time to be agains something like that. It was future.

But we are talking about something so much different now. This is FOOD. I mean, let’s just WONDER, ok? Let’s give our imagination a free pass on this. Let’s supossed this thing actually works to REPLACE, at least in a 90%, every meal we have in a day, in such small prices. I mean, wonder man… there’s a billion people working at agriculture right now. A fucking billion people. This is not like USA depression. THERE IS A BILLION. You know what will happen if a billion people doesn’t have jobs? You know what could happen if a 20% or 30% of the entire population of the world get’s unemployed? And the massive… I mean MASSIVE, trillions of dolars in loss for the companies… I think we wonder enough right? Even if that happen in a minimalistic way, there’s no way other companies are going to lost a single penny over this.


And yeah, obviosly the Benito Muros guy is odd. But when you have an electronic device you just need to test it. There are ways of testing how much of useful life will a product have. And the thing is, that is not like he INVENTED something extraordinary. He just made a bulb with better materials and eliminate the planned obsolescency. Is not like he’s a genious, come on. But again, what will happen if you eliminate the planned obsolescency of electronics? Mayhem boy. The same thing it happen in the 30-50’s: Mayhem. Depression. It will be the end of capitalism. I mean people, come on D: one doesn’t have to be a genious to use your head. I mean, Google was a really good idea, but come one. Ending food production? The most importante faction of economy in the world? Ending CAPITALISM? jojo, that’s how you get silenced.


The more you go on about it the less sense you make. If things were as grim as you paint them we would not have invented anything after the wheel.


You can’t apply for copyright or patent protections for a recipe. It’s why you can buy generic cheerios and oreos and coke and everything else. There’s nothing stopping anyone from creating their own company that directly competes with Rob. Not that I’m advocating it, but this idea that somehow his idea of a recipe is protected is not factual and releasing it under CC is silly. The only thing he claims is the name, Soylent.


Look, my argument is that this could disemploy theoretically a billion people all over the world. That could end a business that produce the 30% of the world economy. If you know just a little bit of economy you know what that mean. So, why is that argument nonsense? What if you make a Tv that last 60 years. Let’s say is a big sucess, everybody buys it. They have big sucess on the company, make billions, the others companies stop sellings as they can’t compete with the possibility of only spending on a Tv for 60 years. So, nobody else buy a tv in 60 years, so the income stop for 60 years and they only make a couple of Tvs a year for new costumers. That’s what happened in the 30’s to 50’s, people didn’t buy stuff becouse they lasted longer, ovens, freezers, cars, they last over 10 years or more and the people didn’t buy and they didn’t have any sustantable income so they invented the planned obsolescency. Read the fucking wikipedia man. I’m not inventing it. It’s not new age conpiracy theory. It’s fucking economy. So, you are going to base your argument over skepticism only? Give ONE invention, ONE, that is totally free or really really cheap, that doesn’t produce any garbage, that is totally healthy and that may help people. Just one. And please don’t say penicillin.


I just don’t agree with your tone. You’re all doom and gloom, end of the world as we know it.

The way you put it Soylent is about to bring the end of the civilised world and yet we don’t even know how the ingredients interact with each other (I’m looking at you oatmeal).

I do wonder why Soylent attracks types like you. First the EMP guy, now this.


Not saying that non-profits can’t start with 3 C-level executives and 2 VP’s, but that it says something about the mindset of the founders (i.e. they like impressive titles).

Nestle & the like don’t need to sue anyone. They have thousands of experts with extensive experience in nutrition and food science, and brands that have far wider reach than Soylent. They’ll be made irrelevant by the normal barriers to entry in this industry: distrust from customers (did you not see their video?) and the cost of regulatory compliance of a mass produced food product.


Now let’s get out of fantasy land and realize that even in progressive San Francisco, >9/10 people think Soylent is dangerous and crazy*. To get mass appeal like you describe, you need to have a trustworthy brand and do some serious PR work to shift the Overton window. Judging from their only video, these guys don’t understand the first thing about PR, branding, or communicating trust.

*anecdotal, I know


The jobs lost in agriculture would be created in the supplements business… - this is open source recipe so we’ll have a lot of variants and competition and no corporation will be able to maintain a monopoly. At this point the time, the most important thing is reaching a critical mass of users so that one can benefit from economies of scale and kick start the whole production process.

Food will still exist and there will still be heavy demand for it. Not everyone is a health-freak like us :slight_smile:


All I’m going to say on this subject is this… There will be no problems with companies trying to sue Soylent out of existence, or anything of that sort. Not for a very long time at least. And that’s simply because Soylent is too different for mass appeal. We are a niche market, that will most likely not disrupt the entire food industry. Because people dislike change, and Soylent is /very/ different from what they are used to. Look at all the responses from people basically saying we’re going to kill ourselves with this. They don’t trust it. So no disruption == no threat to food companies == Soylent is save from conspiracies to bring it down.


The world will adapt. We evolve and that is part of what started this movement. I don’t have research, but it wouldn’t surprise me if most of peoples costs are shelter and food. If we greatly reduce the food cost, there will be less need for work (length or $). The ultimate goal should be to feed and shelter the world and Soylent may take care of the feeding part.