Is Soylent The Future Of (Not) Eating?

soylentTired of spending time, money, and emotional energy on food when you could be fully sustained by quickly gulping down an odorless liquid? 24-year-old software engineer Rob Rhinehart is the creator of a substance called Soylent. His crowd-sourcing page to fund its mass production has raised nearly $800,000 in a few weeks:

I haven’t eaten a bite of food in 30 days, and it’s changed my life. I hypothesized that the body doesn’t need food itself, merely the chemicals and elements it contains. I just want to be in good health and spend as little time and money on food as possible.

I researched every substance the body needs to survive, plus a few extras shown to be beneficial, and purchased all of them in nearly raw chemical form from a variety of sources… I eventually ended up with an thick, odorless, beige liquid. I call it ‘Soylent’.

  • Cortacespedes

    Soylent? Really? That’s the best you could do? Oh, the connotations! Complete and utter subterfuge in order to pocket crowd source monies. GENIUS. Cause eating is such an unpleasant waste of time.

    • Spider Jerusalem

      And it looks like liquid human.

    • mahajohn

      I don’t think you’re looking at this rationally. The moment I read about it I thought that it was a billion-dollar idea. It’s absolutely not BS or subterfuge. Personally, I’ve hoped such a product would exist for at least 25-30 years. No one said eating is an unpleasant waste of time. *Preparing* and eating food is time that could be spent doing something else more fun or productive. Money spent on food can now be spent on other stuff. Energy and resources required to produce the plant and animal food sources will not be wasted to produce food for Soylent consumers.

      I’ve bought a week’s supply to experiment with.

      • Cyprus Mulch

        I balance my rationality with sensuality. I’m sure plenty of folks agree with you, but I think preparing and eating a nutritious meal is a productive, potentially fun, and even sacred activity.

        I imagine that this Soylent slop could be useful in certain situations, but its dystopian brand-name says it all: it’s not that it’s made of people, it’s that it may, in a subtle way, dehumanize those who consume it.

        • Adamas Macalz

          I would prefer this over normal food for 3 reasons…
          1) i’m a bit Ocd and if I make my own I can control what exactly is going in my body which give me some control over its output.
          2) I practice yoga and kundalini meditation and after a certain level of development you should stick to easy to digest food
          3) convenience… I am a polymath and anytime not spent learning something or refining some skill is wasted time
          nothing dehumanizing about it

          • Cyprus Mulch

            Making your own is less dystopian.

            But will you make up your own name for it, so that every time you must, uh, “consume nutritious substance,” nightmare images of cannibalism and Charlton Heston aren’t evoked?

          • Adamas Macalz

            I’ll probably name it cannibal crunch… just for shit’s and giggles

        • atlanticus

          No. It is made of people.

      • Bruteloop

        The billion dollar idea is the control of mass food production by corporations now. End starvation, empower the Third World? The only thing this will be seen as viable for is to get the herd (us) working more hours for less pay. Why have workers eating and socialising around a table. Time is money, right. That time won’t necessarily be available for more ‘fun’ and if you don’t work for food and board what do you work for? Creative satisfaction? Intellectual stimulation. The majority do not have that luxury and the minority have no interest in allowing them to have it.
        Please sir, can I have some more?

  • Guest

    Soon to be served in a prison near you.

  • CosmicAmazing

    Oculus Rift + BCI + Soylent = Slave Matrix

    • Scott Knapp

      or Meditation + DMT + Healthy Diet = :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        Oculus Rift + BCI + Meditation + DMT + Healthy Diet = BAM!

        • Monkey See Monkey Do

          And it also equals ‘Snow crash’

  • Anarchy Pony

    Figures that a software engineer was the one to actually try to make a product like this…
    Although, to be honest, I’m a little surprised it took this long for someone to try and market nutrient paste.

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Less time eating = more time to code :)

      • Anarchy Pony

        Yeah that was my thought.

      • Calypso_1

        If he was really hardcore he’d use an NG tube & pump. Totally frees up the hands from nutrient to orifice tasking.

        • The Well Dressed Man

          How long until this turns in to an actual subcultural practice? Combine this with extreme body modification and perhaps that’s what it will take for the next generation to actually creep us out with their weird. I’d like to think we’ve set the bar pretty high.

          • Calypso_1

            I’m waiting for self-composting bowel management systems.

  • echar

    I’d try this!

    • rtb61

      Sometimes when you stop to think about what you are eating it can be quite disturbing.
      Milk – the secretions from a cows udder.
      Eggs – dead unborn, birds and depositions of the hen.
      Meat – dead animal flesh of many varieties.
      Charing of foods, the char has much in common with crude oil.
      Somehow at times the thought of dietary supplements produced under laboratory conditions, supervised and monitored by government regulatory authorities, of varying flavours seems at times to be desirable.
      Roughage is still required, as you need to excrete built up toxins, roughage adds bulk to ensure the toxins do not end up in high enough concentrations to cause problems.

      • echar

        I learned a long time ago not to think about the details. Just eat, because you need it to live. Also I like hotdogs, so yeah.

      • Emma Rittner

        Don’t analyze it, just eat it. – My mother… Some things they say are true.

  • Scott Knapp

    Soon to be at a prison near you

    • Cortacespedes

      Exactly. What do you suppose sustains those rebellious non-eaters at Guantanamo? You guessed it. Perhaps not this ill-conceived name-brand but its analog to be sure.

  • Guest

    I thought this was a joke but the punchline never came

    • Cortacespedes

      It’s one of those practical joke type things on investors (or ingestors). No punchline required.

  • Karl W. Braun

    Does it come in an organic version?

  • Adamas Macalz

    I’ve been following this for weeks… I’m extremely interested in trying this out

  • BuzzCoastin

    > I hypothesized that the body doesn’t need food itself,
    merely the chemicals and elements it contains.

    that perfectly describes the philosophy of modern food production
    all processed food is essentially a collection of chemicals
    designed to replicate the real thing
    till you prefer the fake to the real

    gee, I wonder where all this diabetes & obesity is coming from?
    gotta be the stupid people, can’t be the fake food

    • Shakynavelbones

      There science can’t see Chi so they think it don’t exist (or most likely don’t even care).

      • BuzzCoastin

        true that
        there is a visual & material bias to modern science

        the people who developed modern agro-culture
        were weapons manufacturers during WW2
        with excess chemical production on their hands
        which is why you can make bombs out of their fertilizer
        and why their food is poison

        science is only a minor player in the game
        usually as a supporting role

        • The Well Dressed Man

          BC, ammonium nitrate is a naturally occurring substance. Plentiful element and ubiquitous polyatomic ion combinations like this are everywhere. You can’t blame everything on the evil technocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate

          • BuzzCoastin

            humans can’t distinguish between
            man made chemicals & naturally occurring chemicals
            but plants & soil life can

            you can’t make a bomb out cow shit
            but you can with a bag of chemical fertilizer

          • The Well Dressed Man

            why not? atoms are atoms. nitrates are byproducts of some manure fermentations. the methane given off by manure is also volatile enough for powerful explosions. boom.

            there are systemic ecological drawbacks to chemical agriculture, but to assert that a basic molecular compound such as ammonium nitrate is intrinsically dangerous, but only when manufactured, reveals an ignorance of basic chemistry.

          • BuzzCoastin

            your assertion that there is no difference
            between natural & man made chemicals to plants & soil life
            shows a lack of knowledge about plant biology
            chemistry is not biology
            but thinking like that got us in this mess

            ps: you can’t make a cow shit bomb
            without using man made chemicals & processes

          • The Well Dressed Man

            How is your ammonium nitrate molecule different than my ammonium nitrate molecule?

            B.C. Shit Bomb: Load thy wagon with ten men’s weight of oxen manure. Seal the cart above and below with the oiled skins of a dozen oxen. Bind thy skins tightly together with the paste of boiled offal and gird with sturdy cord. apply upon the paste without the flint and obsidian shards left by the stonesmith’s craft. In a warm summer’s week, the miasma from the shite will stretch the skins taut as a bladder. Leave thy cart at the enemy’s gates, and put it to the torch.

            Methane go boom.

          • BuzzCoastin

            right
            with enough man made processes
            you can get methane from cow shit
            or buy a bag of chemical fertilizer

            you could have googled your question
            and not have looked so dull witted
            http://www.ehow.com/info_8061512_difference-between-nitrogen-organic-fertilizer.html

            http://www.howstuffworks.com/nitrogen-fixation-info.htm

          • The Well Dressed Man

            That’s a link to a website about organic fertilizer. It says that there are other trace elements besides nitrogen and ammonia in natural fertilizers. This is an advantage. However, this has nothing to do with methane, and says nothing about your ammonium nitrate molecule differing from mine.

            You asked me to build a shit bomb without modern tech. I don’t know enough ochem to consider the challenge of manufacturing ammonium nitrate through bacterial shit fermentation, so I left it alone. I instead chose to use the natural gas, methane, that is produced by decomposing organic matter, especially herbivore manure, to design a mini-Hindenburg full of natural gas. It’s what you smell when you drive through ranching/dairy country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogenesis

            tl/dr: methane is not ammonium nitrate, but still goes boom.

          • BuzzCoastin

            you’re a case where a little knowledge is as bad as a lot
            and I’m not gonna teach you botany
            so if you want to believe that man made chemicals
            are utilized just like natural chemicals
            go ahead, that’s what the fertilizer corporations
            want you to believe

            as to cow shit & chemy nitrogen
            if you buy a ton of cow shit no one would notice
            but if you bought a ton of ammonium nitrate
            expect a call from the FBI

          • NerfJihad

            he described how to build a bomb out of cow shit, you thick idiot.

            You ceded the basis of your argument at that point, and have been backing further and further into the sea ever since.

            He’s pointed out the width and breadth of your ignorance and you’ve sat squarely in the center of it and nodded like it was a badge of honor.

          • BuzzCoastin

            Nobody likes you.
            There is no Santa….
            Additional hurtful comment. :)
            fuck you

            (O.o) i give u all kindz of googly eyes and so forth. /take dat!!

          • NerfJihad

            I guess there wouldn’t be a thread if you could just quietly take a verbal beating and slink back to your hovel in shame.

          • Ittabena

            Have you noticed that when the science club shows up, the expletives soon follow? Which, of course, says something bigger than their arguments.

            I wonder why they wander off the Popular Mechanics reservation at all. Maybe there is no faux debunking left to do at the moment.

          • BuzzCoastin

            well, it’s mostly kids who took a chem class
            or maybe read a science book or two
            but it does tell me that the science party line
            is pretty well adhered too
            but I’ll have to check if any were there
            disin’ Buckey for dising party line science

          • Calypso_1

            When referring to the use of expletives are you speaking of profanity or attributive expletives, which are a larger set of descriptive intensifiers.

            The only profanity came from Buzz.

            “thick idiot” would be attributive & insulting but one should note that Buzz previously referred to the WDM as ‘dim witted’.

            So before moving on to the censorship which you soon advocate, perhaps you will note that the expletives, no matter what degree of profaneness & insult carried, were first evoked by the non-member party of the ‘science club’.

            Generally, the entire argument of the non-science club always rests on various formations of: your position doesn’t count because I find you arrogant & I have special feelings & interpretations of those feelings that trump any provable reality.

            PS:
            Popular Mechanics sux.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I may have cast the first pebble here suggesting Buzz’ ignorance of basic chem. We’ve kept our disagreement pretty civil over quite a few threads, and I appreciate the restraint that the regulars here usually show.

          • Calypso_1

            I’ve pitched the same stone.

          • Ittabena

            >”I appreciate the restraint that the regulars here usually show.”

            As do I. In fact if we ever denigrate to the level that ATS suffers from, I will look for a new home. I think we have achieved a sort of community here and it hurts me to see mud slinging and backbiting begin at all.

            My first (long) response to you earlier this morning was made out of a respect that you have already earned. Even if I disagree with you that respect will remain as long as we all remain in civil discourse.

            I don’t think you were here when I said it but I have stated many times before that I refuse to down vote someone because I feel that this is also a subtle infringement of free speech. Sometimes I am tempted, but I will not do it. What others wish to do is fine, but I will not.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Thank you. I appreciate your thoroughness and thoughtfulness. I am honored that we can disagree with respect when differences arise.

          • Ittabena

            >”one should note that Buzz previously referred to the WDM as ‘dim witted’.”

            Duly noted. I had not caught that when I made that post this morning. Although, I cannot see that a misdeed by Buzz warranted name calling by someone else. I believe that we can agree that this represented an escalation of intensity by an uninjured party and says a lot about character..

            Indeed, I think my reaction was generated more by the intention than the actual profanity. I believe we can see that Buzz’ reaction was a result of he and WDM getting their blood up during a heated and frustrating exchange, and we know Buzz well enough to realize that this is not standard behavior for him at all. Likewise WDM has showed a history, albeit short, of admirable civility. On the other hand NJ seemed to be seizing the opportunity to jump into a conversation merely because it was a chance to be abusive. Again, nothing so far had been hurled at NJ and his reply added nothing substantive to the argument but merely afforded him the opportunity to throw his gallon of gasoline on the flames.

            Also it should be noted that I had, under the correctly delivered admonishment by WDM, reconsidered my position and the assumption I had made about NJ’s statement. I had typed a long civil response, and given NJ the benefit of the doubt, only to find out that while I was typing this apology, NJ was busy typing up proof that my original assumption about him was correct, and even more correct than I had guessed.

            The only censorship I advocate, or indeed advocated, is/was self control and self imposed rules of civility. I merely pointed out what I have learned from previous experience here. That Disqus will cut posts. Pointing out facts can hardly be considered advocacy.

            >”Generally, the entire argument of the non-science club always rests on various formations of: your position doesn’t count because I find you arrogant & I have special feelings & interpretations of those feelings that trump any provable reality.

            I will overlook the fact that this is a sweeping generalization – a pet peeve of mine – for the sake of argument. I do wish to point out that arrogance can only be pointed out if arrogance is present. And I have to differ on your supposition of a lack of evidence. Anyone who has read much about history/archaeology is aware that much evidence has been locked away in basements of museums and archives and written off as fairy tales, myths, legends, or fiction simply because they do not fit with “accepted” theories.

            Don’t like archeology? Try Laurence Gardner’s The Lost Secrets Of The Ark, which is a story of technology and the stifling of it.

            Is this indeed science? Or does it more resemble a science club, where unwanteds – in this case evidence and people – are excluded from consideration and funding. To me science should spend more time making sure that a theory works when considering all the evidence, not just what fits or what is favored.

            This behavior has continued from before the time of Galileo’s house arrest for being correct, all the way up to the present day. A read of Michael Cremo’s long and dry, but to me very interesting, work Forbidden Archeology will demonstrate so many examples of this that the only emotion I was left with at the end was disgust. When the boys in the white lab coats act like scientists instead of some club fearful of losing their funding/membership I will be happy to dole out lavish amounts of respect.

            I have no problem with science per se, and indeed some scientists are as conscientious as they can be. But I do have a huge problem with those who treat science almost as a religion and who take the attitude that if science can’t explain it, it is imaginary, in fact I believe that NJ said something almost exactly to that effect.. For one, their track record doesn’t support such an egotistical contention or attitude. And two if that were true all scientific research would be over right now. If you have an open mind, which is what this site is for, you could not rightly count yourself as a member of the science club to which I was referring.

            Also it is much easier to prove something exists than to prove that something doesn’t exist, except for maybe Bigfoot. So provable reality can be seen more as a progress report or scoreboard than an absolute, or a dogma.

            A very good example of this is the book The Chakras by C.W. Ledbetter which was written in 1919 and illustrated by a Catholic priest. Unless I am mistaken we still cannot prove the existence of Chakras, so according to NJ’s posts here, this means that a Catholic priest took the risk of being defrocked and excommunicated by spending the time to paint something imaginary.

            Compelling? Yes. Empirical Evidence? No. Can we prove they don’t exist? I don’t believe so.

            And finally,

            >”PS:
            Popular Mechanics sux.”

            That was my point.

            With respect,

            Itta

          • Cyprus Mulch

            Those who appear to fetishize the “scientific” perspective often seem to have quite a bit of difficulty in resisting resorting to emotionally-charged and insulting language.

            I think some folks make a religion of being “scientific” because, at a certain level, they are aware of the power of their own emotional-territorial tendencies, and they find it deeply disturbing. While defending rationality, empiricism, and experimentation, they fall under the spell of their own irrationality.

            I see this happen again and again.

          • Calypso_1

            You have mischaracterized both the definition of ‘fetish’ & the attribution of its proper meaning to the parties in question.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Yep. I do have a bit of a covert’s zeal with physical science. My fetishes though… I haven’t seen much evidence that they would be appropriate to discuss here.

          • Calypso_1

            …considering that we have discussed necrophilia on this board, I can only imagine what debauchery you prefer.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Bluff called… I fold. I’m really not that far out there… Just really specific and ocd about my interests, and keep it to myself unless the subject comes up: Femdom.

          • Calypso_1

            naughty boy

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Exactly, Miss.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Nice boots! url appreciated too. Perez is completely unknown to me. This far into the internet era, it’s surprising subcultures can be so regional.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I’ve been reading disinfo off and on since the 90s. With the advent of the disqus forum, the anti-science faction has become very visible. I started participating because the discussion seemed one sided. For me the last straw was an essay arguing against wind energy with especially dishonest rhetoric. I appreciate the free thinking and fringe material on this site, but take the position that, given time, the scientific method wil allow us to quantify and verify such phenomena.

          • Calypso_1

            Agreed. The woeful general ignorance of sci & math in our society is bad enough. To see it in this subculture is painful. Of all the groups of people who could benefit society most with such knowledge it is the unorthodox.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            It’s completely systemic. It’s taken me literal years of remedial math as an adult to work up to college level STEM courses. I sometimes entertain conspiracy theories that US math curricula are specifically designed to obfuscate. This tribe seems to have been steered into liberal arts programs to rub shoulders with budding socialites and heirs. Humanities are important, but the working classes are largely stranded there without trade, profession, or inheritance.

          • Calypso_1

            You are correct. I did the same w/math.

            The problem w/ the unorthodox becoming adept in these skills is that they tend to dislike black boxes. That leads to people who not only question & challenge accepted constructs but have the skills to do something about it.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I failed geometry twice in high school because I thought it was a cult. Third time around, my professor actually took the time to listen to me and explain that euclidian geometry was an idealized model for spatial analysis. Later on, I learned that the Pythagoreans were in fact a rather strange mystic order.

          • Calypso_1

            I had a similar experience in college. Being ‘gifted’ in many areas I was coming to despair over a long history of failures in mathematics. There was nothing I could accept at face
            value & no instructor was able to explain anything to me in a way that made sense. Finally I went to the head of the
            department. He was the first person I ever met that was an artist when it came to math. He listened to my questions and analyzed the nature of my understanding and confusion.
            Turns out I was asking all the same questions that mathematicians had asked for centuries. He showed me how it had taken generations for humanity to work out these ideas and that my questions were not stupid. He was able
            to explain everything from multiple perspectives and I began to find out that I was rather gifted at math as well.

            I wish I had been given definitions like this early on.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_(mathematics)

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Thanks for the link. Apparently set theory is going to be especially important for static mechanics next semester. As a “kinesthetic” learner, moving from the specific model to the general is most efficient, so it’s an opportunity to build out (down?) to areas of neglected abstraction.

          • Calypso_1

            Do you have previous coursework w/ discrete math or matrices?

          • emperorreagan

            To tag on: if you don’t have previous coursework, linear algebra is a good course to take alongside statics. The former (at least for me) made more sense in conjunction with engineering courses, while you’ll find yourself doing a lot of linear algebra operations in the latter (though some professors may gloss over that fact).

          • Calypso_1

            Agreed, I almost mentioned it.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Matrix operations were one of the more intuitive subjects at the precalculus level. Will take linear algebra after calc 3. Discrete math seems beyond the scope of my major, unless it is touched upon in diff equations. The only lower division course not required for my program is statistics, but I intend to take the class at some point.

          • Calypso_1

            I’m surprised they don’t have you take linear prior to statics.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            Got my hands on the textbook. It’s definitely a lower division class, equilibrium applications of Newton’s laws in three dimensions. I can see that some self study of matrix operations will make life easier, though. Statics, Dynamics and Materials are the lower division engineering theory sequence that parallels third semester calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra, and the lower div physics sequence.

          • Calypso_1

            If set theory is troublesome I would suggest a tour through a discrete math text. That approach into predicate logic & set theory is more hands on than an abstracted proof based one.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            What branch of the sciences did you study, Calypso?

          • Calypso_1

            I have a DNP in Psychiatric Nursing, a MS in Biostatistics & am working on my PhD. It was under the Biophysics Dept, but they folded us into Physiology – work a lot w/ neuroscience & biochem folks doing neuroprotective molecule studies.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            My my you have been busy!! Anything to speculation that nootropics of the racetam family are neuroprotective?

          • Calypso_1

            I’ve read they are as far as enhancing survivablity in low oxygenation states but I’m not sure of or to what extent the mechanism has been identified.
            I work in excitotoxcicity & cytokine cascades. I do know of some really interesting work w/ erythropoietin (which is also produced in low O2 states) as a neuroprotectant.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            My knowledge of ochem is limited to street level experiments as a young lad, but sounds fascinating! Do we need to worry about exitotoxic risk of umami?

          • Calypso_1

            I should hope not. Not planning on mainlining MSG are you?

          • emperorreagan

            US curriculum is weird. Most countries teach an integrated math curriculum, where you cover multiple domains and problem solving techniques every year. In the US, they start specializing into discrete domains in 8th grade or so.

            If you miss the jumping off point at 8th grade, you’re going to be left behind. And if you don’t develop the problem solving skills on your own throughout the sequence, you’ll be left behind as well…because the specialization leads to more focus being places on the mechanics of the particular domain, rather than problem solving and analysis.

            I think education devolves into specialization much too quickly – both within specific fields of knowledge and more broadly in being channeled into a specific field of knowledge. When I’m feeling conspiratorial, I think it’s an intentional effort to eliminate context.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            “the specialization leads to more focus being places on the mechanics of the particular domain, rather than problem solving and analysis.”
            Exactly! It wasn’t until physics that things started making any sense. The mathematical concepts and skills needed were precisely the content omitted by math professor after math professor. It seems that studying the applications for which calculus was developed in Newton’s time is the best way to learn…
            My less-paranoid idea is that, with the rise of computer science, math is increasingly being taught from the perspective of information theory and algorithmic abstraction, to the neglect of more tangible models.

          • Ittabena

            We don’t resort to name calling here. And if Disqus sees it they will cut it, as they should. I won’t report it, but someone here will. Buzz’ response to you was about as hard as we tolerate here, but a good example of how it should be done when confronted with knuckle dragging expletives.

            Stay out of the mud and your differing opinion will be welcome here. But don’t expect to be agreed with either.

            But before I go, we seem to be fresh out of Oxen carts, can you lend us yours? I figured since you have already been handing us your BS you would like to sponsor the rest of the project. you know better than I do that we MUST verify the experiment by independent reproduction of it.

            “Ever’ time I go to town,
            the boys start a kickin’ my dog around…”

            Can you guess, Buzz?

          • Ittabena

            …or the DEA

          • Calypso_1

            Perhaps because you would need closer to 100 tonnes of cow manure to provide the equivalent nitro content.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I’m not arguing that chemical fertilizers are identical to natural. The practice is shortsighted and ecologically unsound. Plants and soil systems need more than just ammonia and nitrogen.

            What I’m getting at is the substance in question does occur in nature. Nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are perfectly happy to come together in ammonium nitrate. It’s not going to make poison food. It’s the practice of using this to the exclusion of other nutrients that renders the crops less healthy.

          • Calypso_1

            you can make a bat shit one

          • Calypso_1

            oh but you could with some chicken shit.

      • NerfJihad

        if chi is energy, it can be measured.

        • Shakynavelbones

          Have you ever cooked a meal when you’re in a bad mood and it ended up tasting like shit? Everything, from sourcing to even stirring the rice adds to the ‘vibe’ of what we consume. The highest nutrition is manifest of love and devotion. If you work out how to measure these things, then I can supply you with plenty of experiential evidence. When prep’ing food, I don’t measure ‘cos I’m devote to my intuition and instinctively choose. This alleged foodstuff, to me, is a concoction of capitol devotion (in manufacturer and willing consumer).

          • NerfJihad

            the plural of “anecdote” is not “evidence”.

            Evidence is collected, dated and measured by dedicated nerds who add more to the human experience than you ever will.

            Your nonsensical glurge and abuse of innocent apostrophes in an attempt to be something less than asinine has failed.

            Your cooking must be spectacularly terrible. Chemistry is a science, and is therefor exact. What you’re doing is idiocy, and has no realistic boundaries.

          • Guest

            Thanks for entertaining me with your hilariously mean wit, grammatic note taken too,

            >Your nonsensical glurge and abuse of innocent apostrophes in an attempt to be something less than asinine has failed (…) What you’re doing is idiocy, and has no realistic boundaries.

            That’s a great criticism subject to quote! Cheers. Are you suggesting I refrain from this discussion? Have you ever spent your time with the dying, the sick and those who have not laughed out loud for years? Love and devotion (as archaic and yogurt weaving as it may read), I see heal, I see bring joy and I see people passing peacefully as a result of this union.

        • Ittabena

          Ah, science. Always pompous about having it all figured out…

          Until they find that they are disastrously wrong.

          After which the pompousness always quickly returns.

          Have they figured out how gravity works yet? Or why? Last I checked they hadn’t. Of course they have been researching EM techs for a long time in secret, and aren’t telling us shit, so maybe they have.

          Check out Anti Gravity And The World Grid by David Hatcher Childress. if you google it, it comes right up as a pdf file.

          After that we can talk about Ingo Swan’s involvement with the CIA, or Aleister Crowley’s involvement with MI6, the CIA and NASA’s JPL.

          The people who taught you the sentence you posted don’t even believe it, at least not the ones in the know.

          You are sharing a false mantra.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I see no mantra in NF’s post. He’s simply stating that if something objectively exists as energy, there should be some way of measuring it. Absence of proof does not constitute proof of non-existence. Science freely admits ignorance, that’s the point of inquiry. As far as the gravitational force, general relativity still seems to be the best working model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

            Edit: 1) I found the Childress .pdf hosted on a 911 truther site. It appears to be a compilation of various esoterica. A quick perusal yielded numerous ley line maps, the pythagorean 5-element system, ufos, “light as a feather, stiff as a board,” and the kaballah presented as evidence.

            2) Was Crowley involved in any direct way with JPL? Parsons was certainly inspired by Frater Pedurabo, but how much contact did they have?

          • Ittabena

            Perhaps I misread, or mistook the intention of this post. Strictly speaking he did not say what I took the meaning to be. In my defense, it is possible that the stye in my left eye, which is threatening to rival the size of Rhode Island (No statehood vote planned so far that I have heard,) could have colored my interpretation.

            1) Yes the first reference to the book in a google search is a 911 truth site, but that is merely luck of the draw and does not reflect on the books contents which predates 9/11 by over a decade. But while we are at it, I would like to know the truth behind 9/11 though I do see it as a distraction from the real problems we see today; solving that will not improve our position today by much, in and of itself.

            The sections I had in mind when I mentioned that book, though not the only sections worth reading are ACOUSTIC
            LEVITATION OF STONES by Bruce L. Cathie, and THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT by Harry Osoff and Bruce Cathie. At first glance this may seem as though I have some devotion to Bruce Cathie since he is the author of one and the co author of the second, but the opposite is true. The inclusion of the second article is because of Harry Osoff.

            During the late 90s and early 00s there was a mailing list – old style discussion thread – on chromeshield dot com of which I and Harry were both members. The founder of the list was featured on the History Channel show concerning the Philadelphia experiment, though he was edited badly and harshly by the show’s producers. The Philadelphia Experiment was not the only thing we discussed but it was the launching point. If I am not mistaken Marshall Barnes was also a member of this mailing list though I am not positive of this. The subject of discussion on this list was anything dealing with EM tech and the research of it, but often the discussion would spill over into various other subjects. One woman who I became friends with and used to email privately. Her husband had been a subject, as a child, of the Montauk mind control project and she was always looking for more info on that in order to better help her husband through the aftermath they shared.

            2) If memory serves, about two or three weeks ago there was a story run here that did in fact connect Aleister to Jack and the group of founders of JPL, and this was the basis of that reference. Something, I might add, that Richard Hoagland stopped just short of doing in his books. I would look for it but I have to be in the shower in five minutes as this is my morning to open the store I manage.

            I took the post I responded to as dismissive and a one liner drive by. Had I felt better I probably would have, and should have, asked for clarification before I opened fire. I can only say that I slipped here. My sincere apologies to everyone, a lot on my plate right now.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            9-11 is absolutely a valid topic of inquiry, though it does tend to attract some element of lunatic fringe. The anti gravity compilation looks pretty over the top, but I’d like to read the articles you mention.

            It’s early in my studies of physical science, but I’m under the impression that Einstien’s general relativity provides a very workable model for gravitation, that also jives pretty closely with Newton’s work.

            Crowley appointed Parsons the head of an OTO lodge at some point. I’m not aware of how much personal contact the men had. Hubbard’s connection to Parson’s Babalon Working is to me of more interest. I seem to recall that the third party, Marjorie Cameron was connected to Montauk in some way.

          • Ittabena

            I was actually buying the 9/11 stories until I got back to my hotel room. I was working as a field engineer for WorldCom at the time and was headed from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis that morning. They turned us around and told us not to stay in any large cities that night. All the fibers in the country went to capacity in a matter of minutes. In fact for over a month we sat in our hotel rooms and surfed the internet, or swam in the pool, or went to the bar, all while getting paid.

            Anyway, when I got back to the hotel and saw the buildings fall, I knew something was wrong. I already knew about the firebombing and firestorms that the Allies caused in Germany during WWII and I knew that no steel framed buildings had ever just fallen like that.

            ~

            As for the name Cameron. The doctor who was in charge of Montauk was a Dr. Cameron, possibly his wife or relative. Another interesting book with a somewhat misleading title is The Secret War Against The Jews, by Aarons and Loftus, which is really more of a history of intelligence in the Middle East down through the ages. It is pointed out by the authors that the Montauk Project was just a continuation of Mengele’s research, and that Mengele was indeed smuggled into the US, given a new identity and put next to Cameron who would be the project head of record.

            This book is one of the most informative I have read in a long time. And it gives you a real glimplse into why things are the way they are today. There and here.

            ~
            My point about gravity is that they understand how it works, but not exactly why. The relationships between objects and the power of the gravity can be measured, but the force that drives it still can not be named. We know how it works on things, but we do not know why it does it. it has been a while since I read it, but I believe that came from one of Stephen Hawking’s books.

            Some theorize it is electromagnetic and Laurence Gardner has put together some interesting things in his book with the somewhat misleading title; the Lost Secrets Of The Ark. In it he talks about high spin metals and the true story of the accidental discovery of such by a farmer in the American Southwest. This is another story where science has put the squash on advancement because it either didn’t fit, or because the technology was something they didn’t want out on the public market. Of course some of his suppositions are a little over the top as well, but the story about the high spin metals really happened.

          • Ittabena

            After writing my previous reply to you, which is awaiting moderation, I went down the line of comments and read, for the first time, some of NerjJihads other comments. I have to say now that it seem as though my original assessment of his intentions is actually likely to be correct.

            And in this one case I am giving him a pass on the name calling, which I never do. If you have to resort to name calling…

            It’s something we just don’t do here. We leave that mess for ATS and Godlike Productions to enjoy

          • Ittabena

            I formally withdraw the benefit of the doubt I handed out. it seems I was correct after all. See above.

            It seems you were mistaken as well.

            The mantra comment was indeed correct and it stands.

          • The Well Dressed Man

            I still don’t see the original post in question as mantric or pompous. The dialogs transition to agression is regrettable though.

          • NerfJihad

            I actually know how gravity works: Particles with mass interact with a higher-dimensional field we named Higgs after the guy who thought it might be there. More mass = more interaction. The field permeates all of space, and all massive particles interact weakly with each other.

            We perceive this phenomena as Gravitation.

            I don’t have to read your nonsense to know it’s nonsense. I don’t have to meet you to know you’re a moron, either. Your red herrings and attempts to discredit science with nonsense are transparent and ill worded.

            so I state my original premise once more: if chi is energy, it can be measured.

            It can be measured in the particles that carry it (photons) or the medium that it is carried through (a living body)

            Since this “energy” doesn’t conform to any natural laws, it cannot be described with science, and is therefor imaginary.

            Science doesn’t know everything, but it’s measured everything it knows how to, and is working on the stuff it doesn’t know.

            You’re actively working against that system of inquiry by posting moronic nonsense.

          • Ittabena

            Ah, my assessment was right. And Buzz as usual was spot on.

          • NerfJihad

            Your ignorance isn’t as hard won or as well documented as my knowledge.

          • Ittabena

            Documentation. My my!

            Documentation is a poor substitute for an open mind.

            I do applaud your talent with the mud catapult, you have documented that as well, but not much else. However, I am afraid I prefer to remain on the high road.

            But let’s give you the opportunity to amaze us all.

            >”I actually know how gravity works: Particles with mass interact with a higher-dimensional field we named Higgs after the guy who thought it might be there. More mass = more interaction. The field permeates all of space, and all massive particles interact weakly with each other.

            What force is responsible for this? Or put more succinctly; Why?

            I really want an answer to this, but I think you have already answered it.

            >”We perceive this phenomena as Gravitation.”

            Perceive? As in perception, correct? Phenomina? Does this not infer some sort of question or unknown quantity?

            >”I don’t have to read your nonsense to know it’s nonsense. I don’t have to meet you to know you’re a moron, either. Your red herrings and attempts to discredit science with nonsense are transparent and ill worded.

            No you don’t have to do anything, it is America, but what does this paragraph tell us? Well, we have; 1) evidence you refuse to consider but prefer to attempt to discredit unseen. 2) more mudslinging 3) a dash of cliche 4) an arrogant attitude and a challenge to a pissing contest.

            Did you forget to bring the discussion? Could you have left it back on the coffee table at home when you picked up your perceptions? Or maybe you set it down when you picked up your bucket of mud. Maybe that’s where you left your civility.

            Just trying to help.

    • Jordan Poirier

      Modern food production doesn’t care at all what the body needs. It is designed to be addicting and to bypass the body’s natural limiters on how much we should eat. Soylent isn’t an effort to sell food, it’s an effort to replace it. However, if they were to add certain chemicals it would be extremely dangerous, so we’ll see.

  • Shakynavelbones

    A digestive system used to processing solid matter would surely revolt after long-term ingestion of such a substance? I’m sure it could be very useful in survival/hardcore situations. I Agree with Cyprus Mulch, “I think preparing and eating a nutritious meal is a productive, potentially fun, and even sacred activity.”

    Insert USB into cranium and Soylent pipe via tracheotomy. Oh, Brave New World…

    • Emma Rittner

      Well if the system requires solid matter, just make said paste into a solid… or a semi solid so that the body can still retain the water from the paste. It would be a good way to feed third world countries if nothing else.

    • Calypso_1

      A feeding via a tracheostomy would force aspiration of contents into lungs resulting in rapid asphyxiation.

  • Anthony Helmey

    Eh, id try it

  • The Well Dressed Man

    Look at this as an extreme reaction to foodie culture, and it’s kinda awesome. I’m so tired of cooking shows and going out to wait an hour for a table cause every decent neighborhood restaurant has been overrun with gentrificationistas.

    Soylent seems pretty dystopian, though… Here’s my crunchy DIY version:

    Fill blender with greens: 1/2 kale 1/2 spinach.
    Add 1 cup water
    1 cup milk
    23 grams whey protein
    1 ripe banana

    2 tablespoons flaxseed

    • Bruteloop

      I love good food, make sure I don’t eat crap and exercise to keep fit. We will eat at a couple of good restaurants once in a while, other times we cook for ourselves and cook well. But I also do what you do pretty regularly. Some big interest gets a hold of what these guys are selling it will go the same way all healthy food does.

  • Dana Luckett

    I don’t know why people are so opposed. Are we that addicted to eating as a culture? I think it is an amazing idea. It is obvious that we need to put big changes in place if we want any hope of a brighter future for our decedents. And think of how happy starving children would be to have this readily available to them, to not have to wake up with an empty belly and go to sleep with it still empty. When it goes on the market, I will be waiting in line to purchase some, and I will not be the only one.

  • Laugh You Bastards

    I hope it’s made from people.

  • Bruteloop

    These two really need to be careful where their financing comes from. And change that name…

  • kowalityjesus

    this reminds me of the blue stuff they gave to Dave in 2001 after he traveled into the obelisk, except that stuff was delicious and packaged in familiar food containers. What will the aliens do when ‘wee’ are used to nutritious slop? Where’s the basis for culture? It is an interesting, almost ascetic, experiment.

    • jnana

      that blue stuff kinda freaked me out. makes me think All my food could come from aliens. Which reminds me of the gnostic scripture The Hymn of the Pearl in which the traveler from the east goes to Babylon, is told not to eat their food and does, so he forgets his task. Which is a theme repeated in The Labyrinth w/ David Bowie playing the demiurge, where he feeds the main character a poisoned peach which causes her to forget her task.

  • John Lowden

    Soylent is People!

  • BrianApocalypse

    Personally I’m right behind this, I’ve long wished for a “meal in a pill”. I’d welcome the liberation from the drudgery of eating and all it entails.

    But I think I’ll wait until its proven to be safe first.

  • misinformation

    This is great. Now I’ll have a lot more time to blog about the singularity.

  • Noah_Nine

    this may very well be the scariest thing i’ve read on this site yet…. lets hope it doesn’t catch on… i like eating… can’t help but imagine chow time on the Nebuchadnezzar… brunch with Morph and Trin… yikes

  • zolaris

    Soylent reminds me of the paste eaten by Bishop the android in the movie “Aliens.”

    Food isn’t simply a collection of molecules we stuff down our gullets; it’s culturally significant. The various methods by which humans have gathered, hunted, grown, prepared, and shared food throughout our evolution help to define us. They are part of what makes us both a homogeneous and amazingly diverse species. Try to imagine a Oaxacan feast, a bustling Thai marketplace, or Texas barbecue with nothing to eat but beige goop.

    I suppose that having a nutritious, shelf-stable product like Soylent as emergency calories in extraordinary situations could be beneficial. But to champion this stuff as a replacement for real food in daily life is perhaps to truly embrace the concept of the post-human being. Is that what the inventors are asking us to help bankroll?

  • shushabye

    we need to chew our whole foods, as when we break down foods, they create newer chemicals and enzymes we need to be healthy. i don’t think we are meant to just drink for our dietary needs. It’s a good supplemental possibility, but essentially, we have a mouth and gums, teeth and taste buds, and a digestive system for specific life-sustaining reasons. nice concept you have there, but it doesn’t hold up. there are many nutritional supplemental food replacement sources available, such as Health Force, and many others… if you wanted to look further ahead, I suggest you look into the possibility of marketing your products in the dietary ‘supplemental’ dept. you lost me at ‘ALL’ we need are these chemicals.. and it doesn’t matter about whole foods… well, it does. that’s why we are designed the way we are, and evolved the way we have. our mouth has a purpose beyond communication, and liquids can be taken other ways besides your mouth, like feeding tubes… which I would not promote your ideas about food, which are limited, as I see feeding tubes in the future for those who are too ill to eat… see? ck the supplemental arena, and real science and human biology… beyond a new market scheme. even research broccoli and see why eating it is more important than drinking it, okay? sorry, but I am not buying your science as it’s faulty logic to begin with, okay.

  • Gregory Cushing

    If they take it to the next step of customizing to a persons DNA and current health, we are there.

  • BuzzCoastin

    it’s biased toards an instafaggot reality
    fer sher

  • BuzzCoastin

    “One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”

    “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.”

    Al E=MC2 Einstein

  • Shakynavelbones

    Have you never experienced the liberating goosepimples of Shakti?

  • Cyprus Mulch

    Perhaps “existence”/”nonexistence” is a false dichotomy…a dualistic trap.

  • gustave courbet

    While the scientific materialist perspective has enormous utility, there are subjective experiences beyond its grasp that are still ‘real’ in the material sense, just not necessarily verifiable and repeatable. Beyonds that, there is simply a whole lot about reality that science doesn’t know about (yet) and is considered to be in the realm of metaphysics or pseudoscience.

  • Ittabena

    LMFAO! Didn’t even see that one coming.

  • NerfJihad

    the invisible and the imaginary look a lot alike

  • BuzzCoastin

    duly noted

  • BuzzCoastin

    XD

  • Calypso_1

    Piloerection is a well-understood physiological phenomenon. I could ‘liberate’ you easily with various drug cocktails.

  • Cyprus Mulch

    “In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially or experimentally. These beliefs are further limits to be transcended.” — John C. Lilly

    It’s ironic that we’re having this exchange on the internet, a perfect example of the tendency of the imaginary to become real — just like all the human-made structures and inventions that surround us and shapes our lives. Not to forget intellectual constructs such as empiricism. We are embedded in a world of realized imagination, and our actions and attitudes are constantly affected by the “imaginary” activities of our minds.

    The imaginary is not invisible — the imaginary is that which is perceived by the mind’s eye.

  • Calypso_1

    Not at all.

  • Shakynavelbones

    Physiological hints will do fine, for now, much obliged
    .

  • Cyprus Mulch

    Unicorns may not exist in the sense of empirical, quantifiable mundane reality, but I think maybe you’ll agree that they continue to exist rather persistently in the realm of art, story, and the poetic/mythic imagination. I maintain that those are very real things with very real effects: witness the influence of religion and art on human history.

    I regard attempts to erect a permanent firewall between the poetic/mythic/archetypal and the material/measurable/vivisectable as dualistic error: even the scientific method is a product of the minds of human organisms that dream and experience emotion. The flight into “pure rationalism” and “pure empiricism,” as the only or best ways of thinking and living, reeks of a profound terror of the power of all that challenges neat, binary concepts of “real”/”unreal.” It is a kind of holy dread, albeit costumed in a labcoat.

    The dreamtime never ended.

  • Calypso_1

    Are you familiar with James Hillman’s work on imaginal archetypal psychology?

  • gustave courbet

    Perhaps I can elaborate. When I say subjective experience I am referring to something that objectively occurs but is (at least currently) outside of our abilities to measure and record. For instance, someone who is subjectively experiencing the color yellow or the taste or a banana is processing information that is objectively real but cannot be interpreted except through subjective experience. The objective reality would simply show patterns of neurons firing. As to the non-repeatable comment, I was simply alluding to events that are so rare and/or beyond our understanding that they defy our ability to imperially study them (within our current paradigm, science will hopefully continue to progress). As to your last comment, I can list numerous scientific discoveries that would have sounded preposterous prior to their discovery. For example, radio waves are invisible and impossible to detect without modern technology. Yet they existed prior to their discovery. I am extrapolating the history of scientific discovery into the future in which we will presumably discover new things about reality that have always existed, but were hitherto beyond our abilities to discern and may seem bizarre or implausible within our current zeitgeist. I hope I’ve clarified what I was trying to convey.

  • GD23

    Well, it seems pretty clear that in the (recent) past science has been incorrect, and was not a ‘perfect map’ and it very likely that there are aspects of current scientific knowledge that are wrong. So long as there is a ‘reality’ (the landscape) that science is ‘describing’ (mapping), then
    there is definitely a lot of examples of reality that science doesn’t know about yet.

    If we accept that science is among other things, an inference to the best explanation (and does some its best work like this), rather than something which describes Truth, then given a non-reductive materialistic approach (which has a lot of supporters amongst scientists and philosophers of science), it is perfect acceptable to describe the objects of psychology, biology, chemistry
    etc. as “real”, 100% as good as, 100% as useful as the object of physics – not things to be reduced into the objects of physics. Hence unicorns (and subjective experiences) are real; they exist in the imagination etc. (re: subjective experience – hey you’re having one now!). Cells are
    real, stars are real, and there isn’t a need (nor is it best science) to reduce them to physics. There ain’t nothing but matter, but there are things than aren’t.

  • Cyprus Mulch

    No, but I’d like to know more. Thank you for the lead!

  • Cyprus Mulch

    If you are insisting that there are no such things as dreams or imagination — or the products thereof (art, symbol, poetry, myth), then we have a ridiculous problem. The contents of the imagination are “real” to the extent that they have “real” effects: on human brains and, thus, over time, human culture.

    I never suggested that unicorns exist in the sense that, say, penguins do (other than that both the words “unicorns” and “penguins” have the power to conjure certain images in human minds, and are thus part of a vocabulary of symbols to which we attribute meaning). If that’s what you want to argue about, find someone else.

    I’d also like to remind you that words are mere symbols, yet their power, historically and psychologically, is very real.

  • Andrew

    > words mean things.

    Says you.

  • gustave courbet

    Proof of? Heavy lifting of?

  • Cyprus Mulch

    I appreciate your apology, but I reject your premise: for your purposes, an either/or approach may work fine, but I regard an exclusive reliance on either/or logic to be an insult to the complexities and ambiguities of consciousness — and it is consciousness with which I am presently concerned.

    At the risk of being totally redundant: the contents of the poetic/mythic/archetypal imagination are “real” to the extent they have “real” effects: on consciousness, the brain, behavior, culture. “Words mean things,” you wrote, casually opening a can of worms. Well, concepts DO things, if only (to start with) in the domain of the mind, as any variety of psychology demonstrates.

    To forget unicorns: I accept the scientific view that there is no empirically verifiable evidence for the existence of the soul, but on a daily basis I enjoy the subjective and poetic experience of having a soul.

    Why limit yourself to one point of view? Human consciousness is much more versatile that that. Fnord!

  • Cyprus Mulch

    This “reality” business must be pretty fragile if it requires you to defend it — as if it’s in constant danger of being invaded and altered by the power of the imagination. (It is.) There is no firm line separating “fantasy” and “reality” — because there is absolutely no consensus on what constitutes “reality.” If you define it as “that which can be quantified and predicted via the scientific method,” then you have a model that works for you. But remember: it’s only a model.

    Have fun keeping up with peer-reviewed journals and a “reality” that is constant flux, ambiguity, paradox, strangeness, and quantum trickery — glimpsed, maybe, through semiotic systems of language and number (products of human minds).

    Your statements are neat and simple — tell me, does such a style really do justice to the “reality” of which you speak? Are words “real”?

  • Cyprus Mulch

    Nice to end things on an affirmative note.

  • terrasodium

    One need only to look at the English Queens “coat of arms” to find the reality as it would relate to the historical construct of cognition of systems created from symbols (enter the unicorn /Scottish image of their perceived legendary will to stifle oppression) is it real? as a symbol of history that affirms and shows it’s imagery to rally the folk would have been very real to the folk who comprehended its semantic substitution for literacy.And what of the semantic value of dragons?
    The second order logic we now refer to as mathematics is rife with symbolic imagery E=MC^2 is a symbol of power that for those whom know how to turn the logic therein into a real force(enter atomic fusion) the symbols are underlying cypher for engineering.

    No Unicorns don’t exist, would appear they did/or do have undefined value that has been lost down the memory hole. The spaceship USS enterprise (a la star trek)also doesn’t exist but it hangs as a model from numerous adolescent individuals (of all ages)ceilings , and propagates ideas that has invoked a lot of brain time to making the idea reality. Yeah just a figment of our imagination.

21