Have you ever read The New Yorker’s Lizzie Widdicombe’s article “The End of Food?” If you haven’t, I suggest you do because I think the premise of the article could be the next big hit in the film industry. The basic plot of the film would follow the story of how four young men developed Soylent as liquid nutrition substitute that can serve as the single source of nutrition that an individual requires. Soylent is simply composed of powdered forms of the major macromolecules and vitamins and minerals of the diet in addition to oil and water. With Soylent, there is no need to actually consume solid sources of food, such as beef or bread. In fact, Soylent is ideal for individuals with active or busy lifestyles because one need not stop to eat or prepare food but can instead continue working. Not only that, but Soylent also fills individuals up quicker and for longer periods of time. At the time the article was written, Soylent had been highly supported by individual consumers, and the military and NASA were looking to incorporate Soylent into their programs for the future. Thus, Soylent was on its way to becoming main stream.
Now, why do I think this story would be a hit? The answer is simple. If Soylent became mainstream, would it really mean the end to all food? I believe that this film would really get individuals thinking about themselves and their role in the world. On the one hand, after watching the film, individuals may be quick to take up the cause for standalone liquid nutrition substitutes like Soylent. On the other hand, some individuals may view Soylent as an unnecessary evil.
Those who accept Soylent as an acceptable form of nutrition most likely are thinking of the health benefits it will confer to themselves and the potential implications for protecting the environment. In regards, all four men who developed Soylent are still robust even after subsisting primarily on Soylent for one year. Being able to maintain or improve health through a balanced diet is one of the main goals for most indviduals. Therefore, Soylent could serve to mediate accomplishing this goal. In consideration of the environment, Soylent reduces the need for farms since most nutrients are plant based and in powdered form. Consequently, pollution from farm chemicals and animal wastes is reduced.
In contrast, those opposed to Soylent may be so for social, health, and economical reasons. Since there is no need to stop what you are doing to eat a meal, one can just keep on working and eat right at their desk or wherever they are. The sociability aspect of eating may be lost if individuals don’t feel the need to take a pause in their life or to congregate with others by eating at a common place. Furthermore, some individuals may view supplemental nutrition as “unnatural” because nutrients are not consumed directly in the form of plants and animals. Lastly, by reducing the need for farms, Soylent has the potential to put many individuals out of work.
Conclusively, “The End to Food” could be a move that turns America on its head and encourages individuals to deeply consider the future and the implications of such innovations which are only to increase as time wears on and technology and knowledge increase.