Reported by The Atlantic in July; now Soylent 2.0, having spent 2 years actually in development before anyone outside science magazines picked up, the story or their premise, believes it’s ready for their next step and is going after our coffee trying to replace it with a green tea derivative. Wait, this culinary atrocity just waiting to happen has been being developed for 2 years, Atlantic’s author remarking Soylent makers despite warnings it isn’t yet a full time food substitute, rumored not to eat much, and no one reported on it until July 2016 and in a progressive publication not nightly national news; deceptively, covertly kept under the radar much? Hard to believe Ted-Cruz-ites, conservatives forever worried and warning about bar codes on our foreheads, the debt apocalypse is coming to America, the religious apocalypse is coming to the world types wouldn’t have something to say about slowly replacing food with nutrient supplement drinks best described as sludge, worst described as sperm like, sweet non-toxic Play-Doh; if nothing more than to call it alarmist nonsense on par with global warming and evolution as junk science to advance liberal agendas. Bringing us back to their coffee revamp, containing all the Soylent you love (or can stomach) with 150 mg of caffeine, coffee flavoring and L-Theanine, the amino acid found in green tea. Packs of 12 for $39, 37.50 if you ‘subscribe to the liquid life style;’ whatever that means. Yes remembering studies showing how good, how bad coffee is on your health it may have been forgotten coffee is derived from a natural, grown bean, several kinds and types available, ground up to varying degrees comprising the drink we know as coffee before milk, sugar, chocolate, soy, machine produced foam are added resulting in our morning latte. Caffeine coming naturally through the strength of the bean, think espresso shots not additives, likely similar to artificial ingredients put in Mountain Dew soda laced brand names of Red Bull energy drinks, but us daily coffee fiends should try Coffiest. Soylent’s Soylent 2.0 modern version certainly not without its critics among them those who point out humanity’s hubris in trying such a thing, people who note their ‘supplement’ is based on currently understood nutrition; article highlighting the trial and error nature of diets, dietary recommendations from days of ship captains, biscuits and scurvy. Government sponsored food pyramid, until its very recent redesign, an experiment, an educated, or not so educated, guess about what was best for humans to consume…. Yes Soylent 2.0 is a symptom of society’s bigger problem, just not ones The Atlantic author seem to insinuate… What makes Soylent 2.0 drastically different, divesting one’s self from colorful descriptions depicting bad, banal taste, regular users from tech world, thing tank vats churning out the stuff admittedly spicing, spiking theirs with natural additives, exotic agave nectar punching up flavor, is their assertion, dialed back or not, it can, could, something similar in our coming future, replace food; they want it to replace food whether it will in 20, 50, 100 or 200 years. And for dubious reasons that scream easiest cop out to actually, legitimately, effectively solving, resolving our other problems in ways amicable to everyone, amenable to planetary environments… Typical of man-made solutions to problems, instead of getting smarter about farming, taking up less space, rotating crops for less soil depletion, creating a solve for said soil depletion; they try to get us to eat something that’s not food, more not food than TV dinners, processed meats, fast food pink slime fillers, demonized preservatives, at least those taste good… Instead of getting smarter about safe, natural meat production less harmful to animals and people, it’s food is too extravagant for our exploded population; instead of asking if adjacent westernized, mid-level still considered developing nations can create comparable environments for animals bred as food, it’s here’s a nutritious food substitute better get used to it because dooms day is coming. If Dubai can put a rainforest inside a hotel in the middle of a desert, one guesses they can probably do both; instead they put their efforts into Soylent… Hubris indeed from the very people who gave us partially hydrogenated this, high fructose corn syrup that, sucrose this, margarine is heathier than butter, sugar substitutes not sugar, innumerable preservatives that need a pronunciation guide on the backs of dried beans, pastas, added into pepper, breads, and we’re supposed to trust them on their miraculous new supplement, why? Because they aren’t part of the shady conglomerate food industry putting chemical additives into food to make it more addictive to fleece more money off people who are ponds over weight and still can’t get enough; particularly paying attention to the origins of thinking behind Soylent products. Allegedly Rob Rhinehart Silicon Valley computer coder turned supplement guru, who seriously needs lessons in work life balance, didn’t have time to eat full meals so taught himself physiological chemistry thus Soylent was born; prompting the proceeding comment, “He was too busy to eat real food, but not too busy to brush up on “physiological chemistry” to invent the equivalent of mixing coffee with soymilk and a couple multivitamins, and sell it for 40 bucks. Silicon Valley in a nutshell.” But they too are marketing a product for which they hope to get paid money, lots and lots of money. Salon lacking any background on why they aimed for a coffee substitute. Only real reason to do so, Soylent has everything except that energy jolt keeping overworked, harried America’s running at top speed on less and less sleep; never mind the dangers of self-taught and hey is this Ben Carson was taught chemistry by an angel, had an angel help him through his chem final, the Egyptian pyramids were alien grain silos crap again? … To be challenged also among broad generalizations indicting our eating habits, ‘American diet’ as defined by who, ‘American diet’ according to who, surveys that are inaccurate by virtue of people who try to seem healthier than they are or by people who giggling-ly admit to eating too much McDonald’s, not keeping a daily, weekly food journal are unaware of the healthy choices they are making?… American diet’ as defined not strictly by people pointing to USDA recommendations on salt, sugar, saturated fats, trans fat danger, meat consumption, processed foods but by same flawed logic, like-minded people who recommend completely raw diets on the concept we’re leaching all vitamins, minerals and nutrition out of food when cooking it, if we don’t leave our vegetables crisp and our pasta perfectly andante, even when we do. A doctor who railed not merely against sugar, high fructose corn syrup, wanting to card children for soda when we can’t yet successfully card them for alcohol, but had a problem with orange juice as in squeezed from orange to glass by you the drinker. Enter junk science 101 coinciding with constant mixed information about health benefits attached to specific foods, harmfulness of highly desired edibles, benefits to key types of exercise in combatting X disease, exposing supposed truths about foods themselves…Christian television nutrition expert linking sugar and cancer; however, it wasn’t just processed sugar shoved into everything today, people’s stereotyped constant consumption of cakes, cookies and soda. Most people know white potatoes, corn and peas are starches, carbs more than vegetables per say; she crossed the line though talking about the glycemic index of fruits apples, banana carrots being high in sugar, implied suggestion you stay away if seeking to avoid cancer…Speaking of money, who and where are people spending $600 a month on food and for what household size; I as a single person spend roughly $200 on food same projected price as Soylent. My friend spends just under $900 a month feeding 6, 4 who are kids necessitating occasional treats, increased variety and kid friendly options… We put preservatives in foods so they last more than 1-3 days; there isn’t more food waste than already exists. Or that salt was the original preservative; salting jerky-ing meats, home canning vegetables kept them stored and edible through long winters, dry spells, nature induced shortages throughout the Little House on the Prairie years. We began iodizing table salt and’ marketing’ it to correct en mass iodine deficiency causing goiters (a bulge in the neck due to an enlarged thyroid), sensitivity to cold constipation, thyroid dysfunction, but more importantly developmental, intellectual delays in children; iodine deficiency resurging as health officials recommend reduction of salt intake, people reach for ‘healthier’ alternatives in seal salt and other sources absent precious iodine. We pasteurize, ‘cook’ milk to keep bacteria from the cow, its utters infecting what we drink, sickening unto death vulnerable infants, children…Subsequently pesticides and herbicides (weed killers) weren’t merely the brain child of huge industrial farmers looking to amass more money (there is a reason the government doles out farm subsidies, farming is a sure way to the poor house) they were invented to keep bugs from eating whole swaths of crops like locusts, meaning farmer can’t gain his meager profit, people don’t have looked for vegetables on their plates and cost surrounding what is available is enormous. Herbicides kept weeds from robbing crops of needed soil components to grow, kept them from being chocked out before gaining a chance to sprout or bloom the expected fruit, vegetable… Otherwise we get what this woman found: a black widow in her organic grapes, or the brown recluses spilling forth from a pumpkin set to be carved for Halloween last year… Still, despite the class realities, the impracticality realities an article going back as far as 2010 asked readers if they would try/eat Soylent green based on the ‘benevolent’ way it was made, dying people were never in any pain, euthanized listening to peaceful nature sounds, circumstances in that there is no food and nowhere to put dead bodies, cremation only contributing to global warming that previously facilitated the death of everything including ocean plankton, then a series of apoca-fic scenarios again asking if you would eat Soylent Green under these conditions? An equally abhorrent instance of science without ethics; no I would not eat Soylent Green because cannibalism, no matter how ‘humane,’ is wrong and if humanity has devolved to eating itself then maybe it should die. Alerting us to flaws in the science of science fiction used to ‘better’ the world through Soylent 2.0 firstly this population explosion people keep referring to when global birthrates are dropping, expected to level off by some projections around the year 2050. Declining birthrates representing tangible threats to economic growth and societal function in say Japan that also lacks nurses and means to care for the aged. U.S. economic factors as little as 5 years ago had women scaling back on the number of children they planned to have, delaying marriage; Swedes are investigating their citizens for sexual dysfunction and what it means for public health, political implications. Seemingly silly to be sure but it’s safe to say at least currently they won’t overpopulate themselves. Secondly 3rd world concerns, obliviously missed is they have so many children for a lack of sex education and birth control, to say nothing of most don’t make it to the age of 5, let alone past that…
We don’t know where science will take us in 20, 50 years; we may have developed a vacuum to suck excess greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, help reverse their currently ongoing negative chemical reactions with the planet or discover it was indeed cyclical, natural and part of normal planetary aging. Other science fiction holds a much more positive view of earth’s future think Star Trek, and if we’re starting to get the data pads from there, beginning to build light sabers in science labels al-a Star Wars, what else can we do and to what ends toward saving the planet furthering the human existence and its betterment?
Tag Archives: New York Times
Still, after all the negative hype and chalking the program up to a shameful failure, common core is not without its lingering supporters; enter James (Jim) Goodman high school math teacher sporting a master’s in education and time teaching at both public and private high schools. Who, in late 2015, penned the article linked below that says, in a nutshell, essentially just because it’s new, just because it doesn’t immediately make sense to you doesn’t mean it isn’t good for your kids, doesn’t mean it won’t better their math skills in the long run or that these interim exercises, though appearing silly to you, don’t have a greater purpose. Boiling down our long standing kvetch with common core into one of two categories A-The people who spread the example (and trash it) missed the point of the Common Core Standard in question, or B- The educator responsible for the example missed the point of the Common Core Standard in question. What Mr. Goodman fails to understand is, even if he is right and common core is sound and the people looking at it from the outside or teachers teaching something fundamentally new are responsible for the lion’s share of its problems, it still presents even greater issues for the students forced to be taught by it, only increasing America’s ‘education problem,’ marked learning deficiencies common core was designed to correct on the comprehension level…the father has the greater point in this instance. You couldn’t write a check that way in the real world and children need to deal with real numbers in real life situations; fact of particular importance considering students at his son’s stage have already learned, soon will learn money, coin and bill values, adding and subtracting same, might see a check in there even this early on.
Want to make things better for everyone across all walks of life, all sections of society, all workplaces, stop blaming gender pay gap disparities on women as failed negotiators instead of the negotiation payment structure itself… stop telling women to do it like a man, engage in the same brash decision making, demanding instant gratification type results. Stop making negotiation the cornerstone of how people get paid discounting skills, tangible measurements oriented evaluation…Stop setting women in management up to fail by handing them train wrecks and expecting miracles, firing them when they can’t deliver; end making them tokens in the management hierarchy only to use them as scapegoats for something already failing before they came aboard, exactly what happened in all the women CEO cases now causing second thoughts.
Blatantly disregarded are the millennials living on their parents couch who, despite the trend, the projection are working medial labor, minimum wage jobs gotten in high school, college currently trying to pay down massive student loan debt, who have delayed buying homes, sometimes cars [cough gratification] to do so. And that stereotypical teeny bopper, air head who isn’t doing so good at the local pizza palace, burger barn or Gap store will eventually find where they fit in best getting jobs as CNA’s, home health aides, dental assistants, multiple social services degrees, positions, receptionists who will remain in the job because they like working, interacting with people; ironically most for less than the standard 4 year college or tech school degree, the fate of older millennials born 1980 to 1990. Far from useless considering the growing healthcare industry, the growing need for elder care, special needs, adults with developmental issues like autism care, hmmm.