Many tasty meals can be prepared quickly. Many can be prepared without supervision. You can also prepare meals in bulk and reheat them when you need them.
Are some meals elaborate and time-consuming? Yes. Just don't make those ones.
Sometimes I get bored of pan-seared salmon filet with sauce-of-the-week and microwave-steamed fresh broccoli. After the umpteenth time, I'm not deriving pleasure from the cooking process.
The cook in bulk recommendation is front-loading a time commitment for the kind of freedom something like Soylent would permit without sacrificing part of your weekend. I cook in bulk every so often, but blow half my weekend every week? Not a chance.
Learn a new dish.
"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
Watch a new movie.
> blow half my weekend every week?
Yet another false dichotomy. As I said above, many dishes can be cooked without supervision. Cook one or two of those. On nights when you feel like cooking fresh, cook fresh. Otherwise pull the stew, curry, chilli, ragu etc etc etc out of the freezer and heat it up.
It's just not that hard. And cost:reward vs drinking sour white water seems pretty good to me.
What? Why do I have to watch a movie?
Static -> Unfilling, sour tasting water
Look, however fast and easy it is to make your fast and easy meals, not having to do that is faster and easier. You've already granted the premise that it makes sense, sometimes, to sacrifice complexity of meals for reduced preparation time. Why shouldn't there be very simple options below "some preparation required", if someone wants them?
And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
This sub-sub-thread started over a repetitive meal. Replacing it with a bland soup is hardly going to be an improvement.
> And why are you clinging to this metaphor that asserts that such an option is physically impossible?
I don't follow you on this.
>"After watching Batman Begins every night for 4 months straight, I got a bit bored with it".
> Watch a new movie.
But my problem isn't with Batman Begins. My problem is I don't want to watch a movie every night. I don't want to. Do you get that part? I understand you really like movies, and you enjoy setting up this whole system so you can watch a movie every night and not have it take up your whole day, but I don't like movies as much as you do. Most movies I find pretty dumb. It's boring to sit through the same movie over and over again, and picking out a new movie takes time I'd rather spend doing something I enjoy. I like a good film on the weekend if it's something that really engages me, or if I've got friends over, but otherwise it just seems like a needless time sink.
Why do I need to watch a movie? Why is my only other option to watch static? Why do I need to watch anything?
To dereference, if it is not necessary for my survival[0], why do I need to cook? I know that I can if I want to. And I do, sometimes. Why on earth should I when I don't want to?
[0] Disclaimed because I'm bearish on Soylent-- I don't have that much faith in the USDA. But I think something like it should exist, and I'd jump on it in a heartbeat if it worked.
If you're willing to grant that "chug a Soylent" is as effective a solution as "learn a new dish", and is vastly preferable if learning to prepare and repeatedly preparing a new dish doesn't intrinsically interest me, I have no problem with that.
But if that is the case, the reason I'm having trouble with your metaphor is I don't see how it doesn't make it abundantly clear to you that what we're arguing about is just a difference of taste between us.
That's not my problem with Soylent. My problem is that many people talking about this don't appear to have heard about other liquid feeds, and Soylent claim this is safe for everyone, with plenty of evidence of safety. There is no evidence of safety.
And now you're straw-manning. Cooking in bulk generally takes only marginally more time than cooking the same thing for a single meal.
For example: If you want to do a stew or chili right, you need to brown the meat. You need to do it in batches to avoid crowding the pan. Batches take time.
You have the options of remember to buy nice food that you can take into work, or taking a liquid food. The liquid food might not be tasty, but ensures you're not eating trash and are getting some nutrients.
And, from there, I get that there's a link between Soylent and YC, and so people are really keen to see them do well.
But I can't understand why people seem to ignore the very many brands of liquid feed already being made, which have undergone serious testing.
Soylent in its current form is nothing new. I am no authority, but it probably isn't the best either, with only a few mere months' worth of research. I'm sure this product isn't going to be an impending health disaster -- I doubt anyone would be dumb enough to eat Soylent till they die. But there are alternatives out there (the OP mentions a few) that are likely better-tested. Soylent's one claim to fame may as well be its better marketing (pretty much everyone in that company's a marketer).
In a perfect world, I have time to shop for and prepare elaborate meals. I'd be able to sit down and enjoy these meals with loved ones. Reality is a bit different for many of us. I'm fortunate enough to have the financial means to eat or take out every day if I wanted, but that's not a terribly healthy solution.
The fact is, most of my meals are "utility" meals where I am eating to live. That said, it does not preclude me from living to eat. Food would never cease to be one of life's joys, for me at least. I am pro-Soylent, but I won't participate any time soon. I want to see how it plays out, because putting my body on the line is not in the cards. I hope it works out, because getting back an hour or two every day sounds fantastic.