> Not all of your meals has to be "nutritionally complete".

But is that really a reason to argue against nutritionally complete meals? Healthy is still better than unhealthy. I suppose the choice becomes healthy or tasty at some point.

I am saying that "nutritionally complete meals" try to solve a problem you do not actually have. Please feel free to consider this as an argument against Soylent.

Why is that not an existing problem? Is all nutrition bogus? Or does everybody magically end up with balanced nutrition without trying?

I think a lot of people eat very unhealthy, especially people who have no time to cook a proper meal. Something that helps them eat more nutritionally balanced food could do them a lot of good.

Nutritionally complete meals and nutritionally complete diet are not the same. You can have a balanced, nutritionally complete diet without nutritionally complete meals if you mix them well. Unfortunatelly this is not an 100 M$ idea.

>> people who have no time to cook a proper meal

Are we talking about the same people they spend daily 4+ hours wathing TV?

I think we're talking about people who spend 12+ hours coding.

So instead of Soylent you are suggesting people live in the right country/city with the right people? Uh-huh.

Not exactly. Insted of drinking Soylent go to a nearby shop and by some apples and rye bread. If there are any shops... you maybe just found a market gap. Opening one you could make your city to a better place for living.

Food deserts in the US are pretty common. That makes it harder for people to get nutritious, cheap, fresh food.