>>36376
>I implied you might be trying to seem futuristic in comparison by calling me a hippie.
Not really. Much like your point about organics not going away, there'll always be people who fit the description of a hippie, even if the term falls into disuse. What I'm trying to do is mock your beliefs as based on 'feel-good' concepts instead of evidence.
>don't see the value in it.
That is basically my position, although obviously phrased in a way that disapproves. How about you don't see the value in growing more food on less land, feeding an expanding population and reducing food waste? Organic food discards safe and effective methods of making mother nature our bitch and getting more food, in favour of fear and paranoia about harmless concentrations of benign contaminants.
>never said that non-organic food is immediately harmful
I never said you did and that's quite distinct from my argument.
>evidence forming your conclusions is a small piece of a whole
Of course; it's pretty much impossible to review all evidence even in one narrow sub-field in a human lifetime. But that's why meta-analysis studies exist, to review the many studies and reams of data and come to a conclusion summing up the state of the field. These meta-analyses (apart from the one funded by the organic food industry) conclude that there is no nutritional benefit from switching to organic food.
>antithetical to skepticism
Skepticism is based in demanding evidence for claims. It's unwise to make your mind up before reviewing the evidence, but once you have, it's a mug's game to hold off on conclusions because "what if I just haven't found something yet?"
>not be a guinea pig
No, the guinea pigs are what new pesticides are tested on before they're used on crops. You're a consumer, who benefits from cheap and plentiful food.
>[Unhealthy is fine, but don't feed the corporations]
And that's a fine thing to advocate for, but in a /cyber/ setting, it's unlikely to be an easy or cheap option. My point was that to choose a more expensive but supposedly healthier food source is not very /cyber/, more like hippie.
>There are health benefits in whole foods vs. only ingesting isolated vitamins and minerals. I'll move on. That's how this argument got started.
Yes it is, and despite all the discussion, you've shown nothing convincing to support this. I'll move on too, unless you want to back it up.
The way I see it, you see eating food produced by a corporation as not /cyber/ because of it's origin, buy cyberpunk was always more of a world and a theme than a set of prescribed behaviours. Yes eating corpfood puts you into closer contact with corporations, but corporations are an integral part of the cyberpunk worldfabric. To reject megacorps and do everything yourself on a farm in the woods is hippie; to fight them and use them while living in a world with a corporate backdrop to every scene, that marches to the rhythm of corporate leviathans, that is cyberpunk.
Note that that doesn't mean one is better than the other. A cyberpunk world is a dystopia, not something to aim for. But that's what the thread asked for, /cyber/ food. Soylent fits the bill, organic veg doesn't. Hydroponics are too, they're pretty neat.