Elena Shippey
Jesse Miller
ENG 110G
20 February 2019
For as long as the human race has existed, and all other species for that matter, food has
been a critical point for survival. Alongside water and habitat, food lands under the umbrella of
necessities. However, humans have given meaning to their meals far beyond keeping them alive.
They travel long distances to meet with others to share a meal. Money, energy, and time goes
into each meal, and that is solely our choice. Rhinehart has successfully offered a cheaper, easier,
and more efficient way to fuel our systems with Soylent. It is so economic that he refers to it as
“‘the college-student fridge of the future’” (Widdicombe 6). We have this efficient alternative,
yet we are persistent in more costly meals in terms of both price and work. Why is that? Perhaps
food means more to us than just, well, eating. Perhaps the food in front of us is the gateway to
finding human connection.
Although food is so important to us, most of us probably couldn’t remember what their
dinner was two weeks ago. That is completely normal. There are so many combinations of foods
that can provide the body with the daily nutrients it needs, it would be rather insane to remember
each combination you have ever consumed for every day you have eaten. You might remember
your favorite meal in the world, or that one really gross sandwich you got from the gas station,
but for the most part our memories of food fade into the background. When we can’t remember
our meals, then the food served its purpose. It did its job. The food is the medium we use for
communion. It is not about the lasagna presented in front of you that took three hours to prepare,
but rather the loved ones who gathered to enjoy the meal with you. It is not about whether the
ratio of ricotta cheese to homemade sauce was spot on, but rather what happened over dinner
between people who shared the meal – the stories, the jokes, the conversation. This is what we
take with us. These interactions are the memories, not the plates or what was on them.
In this way, one could argue we are taking food for granted. It being used as a way to
unite people takes advantage of the fact that its primary purpose is to provide the body with its
daily nutrients. This idea is usually a secondary thought for most people; more often we are
meeting with friends or family while conveniently fueling our systems at the same time. In
American culture, food is an excuse to hang out. “Hey, I haven’t seen you in forever, let’s grab
coffee!” usually doesn’t mean “Hey, next Wednesday I’m probably going to have a 2pm crash
after that meeting and you’ll probably be exhausted too, so let’s caffeinate at the same time so
we can get through the rest of that really busy day.” That sounds rather psychotic. We don’t
think about these logistics when we make food-related plans. That coffee isn’t because you think
you’ll need coffee that day; that coffee is an excuse to sit down for two hours and catch up with
Jan from HR. Should we feel collective guilt for abusing the raw, fundamental function of food?
There is another question on the table about whether or not we are wasting time when we
have these coffee dates and other food-related outings. Robert Rhinehart’s invention of Soylent
allows for the body to get all its necessary daily nutrients while maximizing temporal efficiency
by cutting out the time it would take to cook a meal or go out to eat. It’s easier to get more work
done during the day when “you don’t have to stop for lunch” (Widdicombe 14). Plus, Rhinehart
argues that, with Soylent, “you ‘cruise’ through the day” and “your energy levels stay
consistent…afternoons can be just as productive as mornings” (Widdicombe 14). To Rhinehart,
bigger is better. More is more. As a society, we want more time so we can do more things. Based
on his argument on his meal-replacing invention, Rhinehart seems to suggest quantity over
quality. I have a difficult time agreeing with this idea. When it comes to time, it doesn’t matter
how much you have, but it does matter what you do with it. You may be able to maximize your
time throughout the day with Soylent, but it doesn’t equate to a happier, more fulfilling life. If
the time you would have been “wasting” by eating or cooking was replaced by time working,
does that increase your quality of life and overall happiness? The answer may be yes, in which
case pursue the Soylent and take advantage of the ease and accessibility it offers. If the time
saved by Soylent is spent in solitaire, driving yourself up the wall with task after task, then it
might be the time to reassess your priorities. At the end of the day, it is important to be satisfied
with the life you are living.
