Could the eating of insects possibly end worldwide food shortages?

[Adi Shankara]

I was thinking of this earlier, and brought it up in another thread.

I mean, insects take very little energy and water as far as cultivation goes (it takes nearly 3000 liters of water to produce a 150 grams of beef of beef, compared to one liter of water to produce the same weight in grasshoppers), so right there, that could aid in the reversal of soil erosion and drought.

also, insects produce and multiply very quickly, so there would be many harvests per year.

finally, when you consider how low the cost would be, it would be affordable to nearly everyone, (the amount of protein makes it easily the cheapest source) and I think insects could honestly prevent starvation and malnutrition in many cases.

hell, I don't see why Westerners shouldn't start eating them. My girlfriend of sorts who's from Cambodia introduced me to fried crickets, and they taste only like what they are fried in, if anything at all.

so what would the potential challenges to widespread insect cultivation be? what would be wrong with insects becoming the world's primary protein source?

EDIT:
According to estimates by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, some 1,400 species of insects and worms are eaten in almost 90 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

[Nolan]

:laugh:

[Adi Shankara]

:laugh:

no, I'm 100% serious. check this out:


For example the spatial usage and water requirements are only a fraction of that required to produce the same mass of food with cattle farming. Production of 150g of grasshopper meat requires only very little water, while cattle requires 3290 liters to produce the same amount of beef.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy#cite_note-27)


“In certain places with certain cultures with a certain level of acceptance, insects can very well be seen as part of the solution” to hunger, said Patrick Durst, a senior forestry officer at the FAO in Bangkok.

and then in this article, it explains how insect farming could help impoverished Laotians achieve food independence:

http://laovoices.com/2010/06/17/laos-insects-the-answer-to-world-hunger/

[Stephen Colbert]

To end world hunger we must all travel to the scene in Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom and eat all those critters :laugh:

[Adi Shankara]

This could be a serious solution to world hunger though. there is no other protein source as easily cultivated, as widely available, and more affordable than any other protein source.

[Sam_b]

Or, we could stop the subsidies and uneven food production that comes from so-called 'free trade', cancel foreign debt; and open up the surplus food storages that are held by both multinational companies, the IMF, the EU and the US.

We are currently producing enough food. The problem is distribution, and debts that are forcing many countries to grow cash crops rather than food for their populous.

[Adi Shankara]

To end world hunger we must all travel to the scene in Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom and eat all those critters :laugh:

and of course, you can't have a revleft article without the patronizing Western chauvinism that somehow views the consuming of insects as "backward"...



We are currently producing enough food. The problem is distribution, and debts that are forcing many countries to grow cash crops rather than food for their populous.

That is true, but the distribution of food is unlikely to change in the near future as global income inequality increases. and seeing as no world revolution is on the forefront, insect farming could be a realistic solution for now.

[Guerrilla22]

I'd prefer to see the distribution of food evened up throughout the world rather than feed people stray animals, insects, road kill, garbage or whatever else has been suggested for consumption by the impoverished on here.

[Adi Shankara]

I'd prefer to see the distribution of food evened up throughout the world rather than feed people stray animals, insects, road kill, garbage or whatever else has been suggested for consumption by the impoverished on here.

I don't get it. what's wrong with eating insects? my girlfriend from Cambodia does it all the time whenever she visits her rural ancestral village/town and Phnom Penh, and she certainly isn't impoverished by any means.

It's only the Western world that considers insects unfit for consumption. otherwise, to quote above:


According to estimates by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, some 1,400 species of insects and worms are eaten in almost 90 countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia.http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/37072/it-a-bug-life

it's not just the poor who eat them.

"if I can convince them to just try one, they usually stop complaining," said Mr Vinai, who has been selling insects along Sukhumvit Road for many years.

"There's a perception - and this is even stated on various websites - that insects are only eaten by bargirls from the North or Northeast of Thailand. But it's totally false, because middle- and upper-class people, some driving expensive cars, often stop and buy insects."

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

As a vegan I wouldnt eat them but if anybody else wants to thats alright with me.

[khad]

You obviously have to start with stray dogs and work your way down. You'll have to eat groundhogs, raccoons, cats, and rats before you can get to the sweet fried cricket goodness.

[Adi Shankara]

You obviously have to start with stray dogs and work your way down. You'll have to eat groundhogs, raccoons, cats, and rats before you can get to the sweet fried cricket goodness.

:confused::confused:

[Sam_b]

That is true, but the distribution of food is unlikely to change in the near future as global income inequality increases. and seeing as no world revolution is on the forefront, insect farming could be a realistic solution for now.

This has its problems, however. The resources and time needed to breed insects will be out of reach of vast swathes of the impoverished. At a time of fierce local and international competition for equity and resource, this also opens up another layer of inequlity, with those charging high prices for their product to survive. Right now its not in global capital's interest toencourage this growth as it isn't as exportable as say, coffee or cotton.

Is an imporverished farmer in Burundi going to grow insects for local and personal consumption, or more likely to use as much fertile land as possible for coffee to export at a better profit? These are the sort of barriers that are in the way of true food and resource independence.

[Invincible Summer]

I was thinking of this earlier, and brought it up in another thread.

I mean, insects take very little energy and water as far as cultivation goes (it takes nearly 3000 liters of water to produce a 150 grams of beef of beef, compared to one liter of water to produce the same weight in grasshoppers), so right there, that could aid in the reversal of soil erosion and drought.

also, insects produce and multiply very quickly, so there would be many harvests per year.

finally, when you consider how low the cost would be, it would be affordable to nearly everyone, (the amount of protein makes it easily the cheapest source) and I think insects could honestly prevent starvation and malnutrition in many cases.

hell, I don't see why Westerners shouldn't start eating them. My girlfriend of sorts who's from Cambodia introduced me to fried crickets, and they taste only like what they are fried in, if anything at all.

so what would the potential challenges to widespread insect cultivation be? what would be wrong with insects becoming the world's primary protein source?

EDIT:

I understand what you're getting at, but how many insects must one eat to even get hunger pangs to dissipate?

It's strange that people are willing to eat animals as intelligent as pigs that bleed like all hell when they're killed, but think eating insects is ridiculous.



As a vegan I wouldnt eat them but if anybody else wants to thats alright with me.
I'm a vegetarian, but I don't think I'd have qualms about eating insects. From an ethical standpoint, they've got such primitive nervous systems that I don't think they experience pain and have very minimal levels of sentience in that I think they're aware of their own existence, but not much more than that.

[Adi Shankara]

I understand what you're getting at, but how many insects must one eat to even get hunger pangs to dissipate?

wow, they are more nutritious than I anticipated:


So which insects came out on top? The researchers analysed 17 species of edible insects for nutrient composition and found that rhinoceros beetle larvae (Analeptes trifasciata), palm weevil larvae (Rhynchophorus phoenicis) and grasshoppers (Zonocerus variegatus) had the highest crude protein content (29.62%, 28.42% and 26.8%, respectively).that means, of 100 grams of grasshopper, you'd get 26 grams of protein. I think that's higher than beef.


It's strange that people are willing to eat animals as intelligent as pigs that bleed like all hell when they're killed, but think eating insects is ridiculous.

controversial as this opinion may be, I'm convinced that it's subtle racism and Western chauvinism that makes the consumption of insects appear "backward" and "primitive", when in fact, they're a very valuable protein source.

[RedRise]

I see the point that its only the west that thinks insects are unfit for consumption. I mean, if anybody wants to try it I'd say go ahead. But I agree with what Sam_b said; we do have enough food but its badly distributed. Eat insects if you like but we should sought this about before we worry about switching to insects as our primary protein source.
Every animal is designed to eat certain other organisms (plant or animal) to get its nutrition. As far as I know, humans could certainly eat insects but I don't think we are meant to survive on them. We are designed to eat other mammals, birds and fish as well as vegetation but I don't think insects could ever become a main part of our diet. And as Helios+ said, you'd probably have to eat a hell of a lot to stop feeling hungry.

[Guerrilla22]

I hope no one suggests that corpses from wars be used to feed the impoverished. We have to draw the line somewhere.

[Adi Shankara]

I hope no one suggests that corpses from wars be used to feed the impoverished. We have to draw the line somewhere.

There is a huge difference between eating carrion and eating freshly farmed grasshoppers grown exclusively for the purpose of consumption.

but see, that's the thing. corpses, stray animals, and road kill are potentially ridden with disease and are unfit for consumption. anything that has died of natural causes should never be eaten.

cultivated grasshoppers, however, are completely healthy, and are very nutritious. When deep fried or boiled, there is no reason why they can't substitute beef or chicken.

On a random note, did you know they used to feed prisoners in Boston lobster, because they thought Lobster was "unfit for human consumption"?

[dutch master]

if you put the crickets in a dumpster, the anarchists will eat them.

[Blackscare]

I understand what you're getting at, but how many insects must one eat to even get hunger pangs to dissipate?

People eat 'em like popcorn, plus they're rich in protein and such.

Pretty good stuff, actually.

[Adi Shankara]

if you put the crickets in a dumpster, the anarchists will eat them.

yet more Western Chauvinism that compares insects as a food to garbage.

so does that mean you think Thais, Khmers, Viets and Laotians eat garbage? is that what you're getting at?

[dutch master]

No I'm getting at the fact this a fucking stupid thread and you're an idiot.

[Adi Shankara]

No I'm getting at the fact this a fucking stupid thread and you're an idiot.

Real mature. I don't think a single person would think this thread is "stupid", although to be fair, the "idiot" label is debatable :rolleyes:

Now then, may I hear your dialectical analysis on why my thread is sub-par to your standards? :lol:

[dutch master]

hey guys i just had an idea what if we had one big toilet and everyone in town had to shit and piss in it and we only flushed it once a month? it would help save water

[Adi Shankara]

hey guys i just had an idea what if we had one big toilet and everyone in town had to shit and piss in it and we only flushed it once a month? it would help save water

I suggest you stop. you're only embarrassing yourself.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I hear this "cultural food" (for lack of a better term) argument a lot. Certain foods are deemed to an integral part of society that need to be preserved and even praised regardless of how undesirable, unhealthy, etc., they may be.

So we end up with people who praise the eating of scraps, lard fried eats, and other types of foods that were originally eaten out of necessity.

It's not a coincidence that the poorest places on earth are also the places where rats and insects are most commonly eaten. It's also not a coincidence that the most prime cuts of meat, best fruits and vegetables and the like are most commonly eaten in the richest places on earth. Of course many middle class folks would like to keep it that way, since they see the improvement of the underdeveloped areas of the world as a threat to themselves.

It's true that people sometimes hang onto foods they were once forced to eat by circumstance. But in other cases they have not.

Many people in the U.S. would not think of eating a lot of the foods their ancestors who immigrated here ate just a few generations ago.

If you go to Cambodia or Thailand, you'll find that most young people in the cities would never eat insects, even though their parents or grandparents might. In Japan, many young people are ditching traditional meals for hamburgers.

People in ancient Rome ate flamingo tongues. See it on any menus in Europe today?

European settlers in North America ate Deer testicles. I grew up in the U.S. state with more deer hunters than any other and have been eating deer my entire life. I can tell you that very, very few people eat those today.

The conventionalist lament.

The argument that eating insects is a part of being Khmer, or that eating pig intestines is a part of being Black, etc. is rubbish.... And speaking of chauvinism, it reeks of it.

People should be able to eat whatever they want, regardless of where they born. They shouldn't be expected to eat something because "it's a part of their culture" or called racist or chauvinist if they don't want to eat something because "it's a part of [insert label here] culture." I think that given the choice, and free from constraints, most people who choose other sources of protein to insects or rats. History seems to bare this out.

It may take less to raise insects than cows. But necessary input shouldn't be the sole criteria for deciding what to produce. It may require less to create an abacus than a calculator. That doesn't mean we should replace the latter with the former.

Quite simply, we should aim for a society that produces the things everyone wants and needs. If the creation of something requires too many resources, then we need to find more resources or find a way to produce with less resources (i.e. more efficiently).

If one of the things people want is insects, then they should be able to dine on as many bugs as they can eat.

[Adi Shankara]

So we end up with people who praise the eating of scraps, lard fried eats, and other types of foods that were originally eaten out of necessity.

It's not a coincidence that the poorest places on earth are also the places where rats and insects are most commonly eaten.

complete bigotry. Thailand, Mexico and Vietnam, by most of the world's standards, can hardly be seen as poor as some countries. they are middle income countries. yet they still eat insects, as well as the rich.


It's also not a coincidence that the most prime cuts of meat, best fruits and vegetables and the like are most commonly eaten in the richest places on earth. Of course many middle class folks would like to keep it that way, since they see the improvement of the underdeveloped areas of the world as a threat to themselves.

They do, but this is also based in ignorance. Mongolia and Paraguay have a much higher red meat consumption rate than Central African Republic or Cambodia, and indeed, the world average but both Paraguay and Mongolia are really poor nations as well.



If you go to Cambodia or Thailand, you'll find that most young people in the cities would never eat insects, even though their parents or grandparents might. In Japan, many young people are ditching traditional meals for hamburgers.

More western Chauvinism; My girlfriend lived in Cambodia for the first 9 years of her life, and she returned twice every year since then. she says everyone eats grasshoppers because they are seen as a convenience food, like pizza or taco bell here. she sent me pictures of the rural Kampong Marketplaces where they sell tarantula's as a delicacy...surely, grasshoppers would be more available. but the people continue to eat tarantulas in Skuoun, because they are seen as a Khmer specialty, as is marijuana and kaffir lime soup, called Kanchaa or something like that.

Nevermind that the traditional Japanese diet is more healthy than most "American" food, "they eat hamburgers now, so they are obviously more cultured than they were before! :rolleyes: those barbaric Japanese, they should be drinking coca-cola instead of tea, that would make them more Western, and thus more civilized!" -___-


People in ancient Rome ate flamingo tongues. See it on any menus in Europe today?

Flamingo tongues were hardly eaten by the poor. they were only afforded by the wealthiest of Romans.



European settlers in North America ate Deer testicles. I grew up in the U.S. state with more deer hunters than any other and have been eating deer my entire life. I can tell you that very, very few people eat those today.

but people still eat it, and it's not a cheap meat. it's seen as a delicacy. even so, I don't see how this supports your argument.



The argument that eating insects is a part of being Khmer, or that eating pig intestines is a part of being Black, etc. is rubbish.... And speaking of chauvinism, it reeks of it.

Poi is still highly sought after in Hawaii...are you saying all those Hawaiian "locals" are being chauvinistic unto to themselves? you aren't making very much sense.


People should be able to eat whatever they want, regardless of where they born. They shouldn't be expected to eat something because "it's a part of their culture" or called racist or chauvinist if they don't want to eat something because "it's a part of [insert label here] culture." I think that given the choice, and free from constraints, most people who choose other sources of protein to insects or rats. History seems to bare this out.

that's not what I was saying. what I was saying is, to disregard insects as unfit for consumption (of which you have done many times already) is completely Western imperialist thinking, adopting a Euro-centric view to everything. we're the only culture on earth who thinks that eating insects is improper.


It may take less to raise insects than cows. But necessary input shouldn't be the sole criteria for deciding what to produce. It may require less to create an abacus than a calculator. That doesn't mean we should replace the latter with the former.

It doesn't mean we should keep beef on the menu just so that Western citizens can nod on approvingly that eastern and African cultures aren't as "backwards". Most of India see's eating beef as barbaric, but the eating of insects as normal and appropriate. are they backwards too?


Quite simply, we should aim for a society that produces the things everyone wants and needs. If the creation of something requires too many resources, then we need to find more resources or find a way to produce with less resources (i.e. more efficiently).

we should strive for that, but starvation is a very real problem, and as westerners pontificate about what is superior for consumption, insects could provide a cheap and affordable resource for protein.


If one of the things people want is insects, then they should be able to dine on as many bugs as they can eat.

agreed, but your attitude seems to reflect the thinking that, "if they don't eat what I think is "high class food", then they are backwards, or are forced to eat that way.

[AK]

if you put the crickets in a dumpster, the anarchists will eat them.
Why haven't you been banned yet?

[Invincible Summer]

People eat 'em like popcorn, plus they're rich in protein and such.

Pretty good stuff, actually.

Yeah, I'm aware that people do that. But I mean like... it seems like you have to eat a massive amount to stop feeling hungry (I'm not even talking about being "full").


I hear this "cultural food" (for lack of a better term) argument a lot. Certain foods are deemed to an integral part of society that need to be preserved and even praised regardless of how undesirably, unhealthy, etc., they may be.

...

It's not a coincidence that the poorest places on earth are also the places where rats and insects are most commonly eaten. It's also not a coincidence that the most prime cuts of meat, best fruits and vegetables and the like are most commonly eaten in the richest places on earth. Of course many middle class folks would like to keep it that way, since they see the improvement of the underdeveloped areas of the world as a threat to themselves.
...

The argument that eating insects is a part of being Khmer, or that eating pig intestines is a part of being Black, etc. is rubbish.... And speaking of chauvinism, it reeks of it.

They shouldn't be expected to eat something because "it's a part of their culture" or called racist or chauvinist if they don't want to eat something because "it's a part of [insert label here] culture." I think that given the choice, and free from constraints, most people who choose other sources of protein to insects or rats. History seems to bare this out.

I don't think anyone in this thread is supporting this argument.

I think TS' point was to suggest a way to alleviate problems under capitalism utilizing easily found local food sources, not be a "cultural food chauvinist" or whatever you want to call it.

Yeah, we should aim for "a society that produces the things everyone wants and needs," but in the meantime, what's wrong with coming up with these kinds of ideas? So long as one doesn't buy into the illusion that reform can bring about communism, I don't see the harm.


Quite simply, we should aim for a society that produces the things everyone wants and needs. If the creation of something requires too many resources, then we need to find more resources or find a way to produce with less resources (i.e. more efficiently).

If one of the things people want is insects, then they should be able to dine on as many bugs as they can eat.

I don't think anyone disagrees.

[Sam_b]

Central African Republic of Cambodia

The South-East Asian country?

I think what NHIA is saying, and I partly agree, that there is a grey line in-between what is a 'delicacy' that has been artificially forged out of necessity, regional/"ethnic" cuisine and what the people there if given a choice would wish to use for substinance. There is a very very murky line here, and we can't really count any of it as 'A' or 'B' because of the differences in sociological and economic divide. We should also factor into the equation that a lot of produce tends to instantly become 'delicacies' because they are not mass-produced, can therefore command a higher price on the market, and perhaps are only treated as such by those wishing to go 'native'.

I think there's an argument on both sides here, but it can get slightly confused and blurred. I don't think we can go as far as calling NHIA a victim of 'imperialist Euro-centric' thinking, and not just because that doesn't equate to imperialism with regard to monopoly capitalism - which is exactly against the view he's arguing.

[Adi Shankara]

The South-East Asian country?

yeah, typo, it should read "or". looking at it though, it does look pretty funny.


I think what NHIA is saying, and I partly agree, that there is a grey line in-between what is a 'delicacy' that has been artificially forged out of necessity, regional/"ethnic" cuisine and what the people there if given a choice would wish to use for substinance.

I agree with this. but there is no denying, that at least from what I hear in Cambodia, people buy spiders and insects to eat, even as the tarantulas are more expensive than red meat by the gross, because people in these countries really do like them. it probably stemmed from foragers during the Democratic Kampuchea days, but if it tasted good then, I don't see why it would taste worse later.



I think there's an argument on both sides here, but it can get slightly confused and blurred. I don't think we can go as far as calling NHIA a victim of 'imperialist Euro-centric' thinking, and not just because that doesn't equate to imperialism with regard to monopoly capitalism - which is exactly against the view he's arguing.

then I'll agree with that, and apologize to NHIA for name-calling. however, I still can't help but notice many of the arguments used are seen from a Euro-centric view. again, given the option, most Indians, including the very wealthy, would choose insects over beef any day, because in Hindustani culture, they see eating beef as barbaric.

[ckaihatsu]

You obviously have to start with stray dogs and work your way down. You'll have to eat groundhogs, raccoons, cats, and rats before you can get to the sweet fried cricket goodness.


Oooooo, ooooooo, I've got *another* entrepreneurial idea -- let's "recycle" our recently deceased, as the cannibals call it -- lotsa good protein there, too, being wasted!! Last to go IPO is a rotten egg!!


x D


(That way we could get around this infernal nasty business of capitalism being a problem and just settle down to some real-world solutions...!)(Heh.)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

complete bigotry.:lol: That's about what I expected.


Thailand, Mexico and Vietnam, by most of the world's standards, can hardly be seen as poor as some countries. they are middle income countries. yet they still eat insects, as well as the rich.Cambodia is 155 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 4.3% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Viet Nam is 135 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 6.4% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Thailand is 95 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 17.5% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Mexico is 64 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 29% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Two of these countries can be considered "middle income" only because of the concentration of wealth in a handful of countries. They are still poor and underdeveloped countries.

Besides that, I've already said that a number of foods that were originally eaten out of necessity have carried over in some areas. This has to do with material conditions.

Insects were likely one of the first foods humans ate. They were among the easiest to find and probably made up a big part of what people ate before the development of hunting and farming.

A number of primates eat insects and there's evidence of people eating insects in the Ozarks, Spain, etc. in the distant past.

Entomophagy isn't a practiced inherently tied to any group of people from a certain country.


Mongolia and Paraguay have a much higher red meat consumption rate than Central African Republic or Cambodia, and indeed, the world average but both Paraguay and Mongolia are really poor nations as well.Mongolia is 133 of 194 in GDP (PPP). It's GDP (PPP) is about 6.9% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Paraguay is 125 of 194 in GDP (PPP). It's GDP (PPP) is about 8.9% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

But red meat is also more available in those countries than many others as a result of the environment, historical circumstances, etc.


More western ChauvinismYeah. That must be it.


My girlfriend lived in Cambodia for the first 9 years of her life, and she returned twice every year since then. she says everyone eats grasshoppersWell, she's wrong. Everyone does not eat grasshoppers. I have a number of acquaintances in Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam, many of whom I talk to on a near daily basis online. None of them eat insects or ever have. They are all under 35. Only one lives outside of a major city.

I have a number of Khmer and Lao friends here in the states. We've talked about eating insects before. None of them have, and none of their immediate family in their countries of origin do either.

If you watch the episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern filmed in Viet Nam you'll see a meal in which the older folks eat the insects while the younger members of the family refuse it. This phenomenon is specifically mentioned by the host.


Nevermind that the traditional Japanese diet is more healthy than most "American" food, "they eat hamburgers now, so they are obviously more cultured than they were before! :rolleyes: those barbaric Japanese, they should be drinking coca-cola instead of tea, that would make them more Western, and thus more civilized!" Yes, that's exactly what I said. I'm glad you were able to quote me so accurately.

The fact is that younger people are eating more hamburgers, etc. I know that pisses off traditionalists, middle class folks with cultural stereotypes/fetishes, Japanese nationalists, etc., but it's the reality. Condemnations of them for "abandoning their culture" not withstanding hasn't reversed this trend.


but people still eat it, Deer testicles? Who? I literally know hundreds of people who eat deer meat every year. None of them dine on buck balls.


and it's not a cheap meat. Where I grew up it's not something you buy. It's something you shoot.


it's seen as a delicacy. Nope. For Pennsylvania's 1,000,000+ hunters and their family, friends and coworkers it's standard fare.


even so, I don't see how this supports your argumentPretty basic. People used to eat deer testicles. With the free availability of other choices, they stopped eating them.


Poi is still highly sought after in Hawaii...are you saying all those Hawaiian "locals" are being chauvinistic unto to themselves? you aren't making very much sense.It's not very difficult to understand. People from one area who claim certain foods are an inherent part of the very being and fiber of people from another area, or attribute to them any other general characteristics, are chauvinists... or worse.


that's not what I was saying. what I was saying is, to disregard insects as unfit for consumption (of which you have done many times already) Many times? Where and when?

I actually said "If one of the things people want is insects, then they should be able to dine on as many bugs as they can eat."


is completely Western imperialist thinking,:confused:


adopting a Euro-centric view to everything. Except that I've already said that Europeans ate insects in the past.


It doesn't mean we should keep beef on the menu just so that Western citizens can nod on approvingly that eastern and African cultures aren't as "backwards". Most of India see's eating beef as barbaric, but the eating of insects as normal and appropriate. are they backwards too?

Indians aren't backwards (and I don't attribute features to groups of people who live in a certain area), but India is certainly an underdeveloped country.

And a reverence for cattle is not something inherent to everyone in India. It's not a natural feature of their existence. They don't refuse to eat cows because they were born within a certain area. It's also not something desirable or an example of some sort of "high level of thought" to let people starve to death while cows abound.

The worship of cattle in the Indian Subcontinent most likely arose from the pastoral practices of people there who relied on cows for farming (using them as draft animals and their excrement as fertilizer) and food (dairy products).

"Cow-slaughter is banned in a majority of states except Kerala, West Bengal and the seven-north-eastern states.... In Kerala, Muslims, Christians and even Hindus eat beef." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2945020.stm

It's an outright shame that this superstition hasn't been completely overcome. A couple of years ago some reactionary in office proposed a national ban on the slaughter of cows in an attempt to gain support. The politicians of the Congress Party and BJP then proceeded to try to outdo each other on the issue, each asserting they were "more Hindu" than the other. Meanwhile:

"India has more people suffering hunger - a figure above 200 million - than any other country in the world" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7669152.stm

Maybe they just need more mealworms. :rolleyes:


we should strive for that, but starvation is a very real problem, and as westerners pontificate about what is superior for consumption, insects could provide a cheap and affordable resource for protein.Except the reason people are starving isn't that there isn't enough beef or that raising beef takes up too much water. It's the very workings of the capitalist system that cause this. Even if all beef farming was replaced with insect farming tomorrow (which isn't going to happen of course) the same people who are starving now would still be starving.

The main forces promoting this stuff seem to be proprietors looking for "the next big thing" and well fed observers who look at the problem of global hunger and respond "let them eat bugs."

"....bugs could also become a welcome diet supplement among the estimated 20 million extremely poor Mexicans who live on incomes of $1 per day or less." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248519/

Beef and chicken would likely be an even more "welcome diet supplement," but of course that's out of the question. Besides, Mexicans love bugs. Right?

[ckaihatsu]

we should strive for that, but starvation is a very real problem, and as westerners pontificate about what is superior for consumption, insects could provide a cheap and affordable resource for protein.


*Personal* starvation doesn't *require* an argument -- if someone is really so geographically disconnected from society and in such dire straits, they will eat *whatever* they feel they have to in order to survive. In other words, *personal* decisions, as to diet, preferences, etc., are entirely *below* the overarching realm of politics, including issues of general food supply.

*No one* here is being Western chauvinist -- you're attacking a straw dummy here....





if you put the crickets in a dumpster, the anarchists will eat them.


* Hilarious! *


(lmfao)


(Love the World Cup reference, too, in your name...!) (Almost.)

[Saorsa]

I wonder what Thomas Sankara would have thought if you suggested that the way he deal with hunger in Burkina Faso be through convincing the poor to eat more insects.

[Revy]

I agree with NHIA. I support choice of food. The point is, although you may deem it a solution to feed them insects, the problem behind food shortages is poverty and an unequal system of distribution. If they want to eat beef, pork, chicken, fish, they should be able to.

I don't think because insects are small means it will be sustainable. If you think about it, the raising of insects for food would require a lot of care. They would have to be put in tanks so they didn't escape, you would have to take care of their waste, you would have to feed them. If you think about it, it's like raising thousands of bugs to get the same amount of energy/protein as a cow.

Does bug taste as good as meat? I really doubt it. The fact that they deep fry these bugs show that they are trying to make something otherwise inedible taste good. I really don't feel the need to deep fry meat for it to satisfy me.

[Chambered Word]

I was thinking of this earlier, and brought it up in another thread.

I mean, insects take very little energy and water as far as cultivation goes (it takes nearly 3000 liters of water to produce a 150 grams of beef of beef, compared to one liter of water to produce the same weight in grasshoppers), so right there, that could aid in the reversal of soil erosion and drought.

also, insects produce and multiply very quickly, so there would be many harvests per year.

finally, when you consider how low the cost would be, it would be affordable to nearly everyone, (the amount of protein makes it easily the cheapest source) and I think insects could honestly prevent starvation and malnutrition in many cases.

hell, I don't see why Westerners shouldn't start eating them. My girlfriend of sorts who's from Cambodia introduced me to fried crickets, and they taste only like what they are fried in, if anything at all.

so what would the potential challenges to widespread insect cultivation be? what would be wrong with insects becoming the world's primary protein source?

EDIT:

Or we could just take more practical steps to distribute food properly and combat climate change by introducing renewable energy.

I don't want to eat insects. I hate that shit.

[Blake's Baby]

As a vegetarian, this is all a bit beyond me (and obviously I think that the main thing is re-distribution), but I do wonder how many of the people who won't eat insects do eat prawns, shrimps etc? I merely be missing something, but, is there any difference between a prawn and a cockroach?

[Adi Shankara]

Does bug taste as good as meat? I really doubt it. The fact that they deep fry these bugs show that they are trying to make something otherwise inedible taste good. I really don't feel the need to deep fry meat for it to satisfy me.

While I only had them twice, they taste like french fries basically. that is, starchy and oily.

meanwhile, I'm tired. I'll reply to the rest of these posts tomorrow.

P.S: Thomas Sankara didn't think one way or another about feeding his people insects, beef, or pork; his only concern was feeding his people

[ckaihatsu]

Didn't you know you're supposed to *inform* us when your head gets hacked by political-voidist anarcho-primitivist-Green bullshit-lifestylist corporate marketers?


= D


x D

[the last donut of the night]

I smell a new Revleft meme coming...

[Adi Shankara]

:lol: That's about what I expected.

Cambodia is 155 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 4.3% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Viet Nam is 135 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 6.4% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Thailand is 95 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 17.5% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Mexico is 64 of 194 in GDP (PPP). Its GDP (PPP) is about 29% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Who is to say that insects as "poor people food" isn't a construct of Western imperialism imposed on other cultures? a reversal of this situation is that lobster was once seen as "poor people food"...only fed to prisoners. then one day, they became a delicacy.

what happened? did lobster all of a sudden start tasting good at a specific date and time? or did attitudes and acceptances change?


Besides that, I've already said that a number of foods that were originally eaten out of necessity have carried over in some areas. This has to do with material conditions.

even so, if I was to eat insects on a regular basis, would I be poor of a sudden? does the consumption of insects make people poor? this is immaterial.


Insects were likely one of the first foods humans ate. They were among the easiest to find and probably made up a big part of what people ate before the development of hunting and farming.

so what's wrong with promoting their consumption?


A number of primates eat insects and there's evidence of people eating insects in the Ozarks, Spain, etc. in the distant past.

and then, like with the lobster, attitudes changed; food once seen as acceptable became disgusting.


Entomophagy isn't a practiced inherently tied to any group of people from a certain country.

Mongolia is 133 of 194 in GDP (PPP). It's GDP (PPP) is about 6.9% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

Paraguay is 125 of 194 in GDP (PPP). It's GDP (PPP) is about 8.9% of the GDP (PPP) of the United States.

But red meat is also more available in those countries than many others as a result of the environment, historical circumstances, etc.

since you tie the consumption of insects to poverty, does that make red meat tied to poverty, since it's consumed in large quantities in such poor countries? or is red an approved food source, since it has the approval of Western society? :rolleyes:

.


Well, she's wrong. Everyone does not eat grasshoppers. I have a number of acquaintances in Cambodia, Thailand and Viet Nam, many of whom I talk to on a near daily basis online. None of them eat insects or ever have. They are all under 35. Only one lives outside of a major city.

I have a number of Khmer and Lao friends here in the states. We've talked about eating insects before. None of them have, and none of their immediate family in their countries of origin do either.

If you watch the episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern filmed in Viet Nam you'll see a meal in which the older folks eat the insects while the younger members of the family refuse it. This phenomenon is specifically mentioned by the host.

how much of this though can be attributed to Western propaganda? Many Cambodians, for the same reason, buy skin whiteners, try to propagate western attitudes, etc. Because acting "western" =civilized to many Khmers. Toplessness was once the norm for Cambodia, but then the French came and they were told how inappropriate dressing like that was.

does that mean there is anything wrong with traditional toplessness in Cambodia?

insects were eaten for thousands of years in Cambodia, even under the wealthy Khmer empire that could easily have provided red meat to all it's citizens. Cambodian people were not always poor, yet they still ate insects.

does this mean that insects stopped tasting good one day and only red meat did?


The fact is that younger people are eating more hamburgers, etc. I know that pisses off traditionalists, middle class folks with cultural stereotypes/fetishes, Japanese nationalists, etc., but it's the reality. Condemnations of them for "abandoning their culture" not withstanding hasn't reversed this trend.

That's not surprising, considering how, around the world, being Western, aka White/European is equated with prosperity.


Deer testicles? Who? I literally know hundreds of people who eat deer meat every year. None of them dine on buck balls.

I was referring to Venison.


Pretty basic. People used to eat deer testicles. With the free availability of other choices, they stopped eating them.

Dear testicles were never eaten as a primary food source. insects were and have been.


It's not very difficult to understand. People from one area who claim certain foods are an inherent part of the very being and fiber of people from another area, or attribute to them any other general characteristics, are chauvinists... or worse.

I agree, which is why I think it's ridiculous that you're tying the consumption of insects to poverty...you think insects are unfit for human consumption, and that I'm being chauvinist for promoting their use. I happen to like them, the times I had them.


Many times? Where and when?

while not stated directly, it is very clear you are opposed to the idea of insects as food, at least, as a solution to hunger.


Indians aren't backwards (and I don't attribute features to groups of people who live in a certain area), but India is certainly an underdeveloped country.

but even many rich Indians don't eat beef and continue to find it disgusting. This isn't phenomena exclusive to the poor and downtrodden.


And a reverence for cattle is not something inherent to everyone in India. It's not a natural feature of their existence. They don't refuse to eat cows because they were born within a certain area.

Neither is this western ignorance/abhorrence to insects as a protein source.


It's also not something desirable or an example of some sort of "high level of thought" to let people starve to death while cows abound.

No Comment.


The worship of cattle in the Indian Subcontinent most likely arose from the pastoral practices of people there who relied on cows for farming (using them as draft animals and their excrement as fertilizer) and food (dairy products).

"Cow-slaughter is banned in a majority of states except Kerala, West Bengal and the seven-north-eastern states.... In Kerala, Muslims, Christians and even Hindus eat beef." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2945020.stm

...and?



It's an outright shame that this superstition hasn't been completely overcome

Who the hell are you to judge other people's cultures? the abhorrence of beef isn't just a religious issue. many are opposed to it by principle. but I guess vegetarianism is a superstition now too, huh? :rolleyes:

besides, when will the West get over the superstition that some certain foods are unfit for human consumption, because we think they're "cute" or they are "icky"?



Except the reason people are starving isn't that there isn't enough beef or that raising beef takes up too much water. It's the very workings of the capitalist system that cause this. Even if all beef farming was replaced with insect farming tomorrow (which isn't going to happen of course) the same people who are starving now would still be starving.

probably the only intelligent thing I've seen posted in this response yet. I now ask myself if that would happen again with insects, and you're probably right: if insect cultivation became widespread tomorrow, capitalists would just seize the mode of production like they have already with beef.


The main forces promoting this stuff seem to be proprietors looking for "the next big thing" and well fed observers who look at the problem of global hunger and respond "let them eat bugs."

or geniune inquiries wondering "these things aren't poisonous, they don't really taste that bad, and the only opposition seems to come from pampered individuals in the west...why not?"


"....bugs could also become a welcome diet supplement among the estimated 20 million extremely poor Mexicans who live on incomes of $1 per day or less." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248519/

Again, you can debate until you're purple that they probably would like beef or chicken more, but lets face the facts: they won't be getting any of that any time soon. at least with insects, they could stand a chance in controlling their own food supply.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

P.S: Thomas Sankara didn't think one way or another about feeding his people insects, beef, or pork; his only concern was feeding his people

Did you find this out from him personally? Or was it something he wrote or said publicly that I simply missed?


As a vegetarian, this is all a bit beyond me (and obviously I think that the main thing is re-distribution), but I do wonder how many of the people who won't eat insects do eat prawns, shrimps etc? I merely be missing something, but, is there any difference between a prawn and a cockroach?

:lol: I've asked this same question to people I know who eat lobster, shrimp, etc. The only answer I've ever received is "they are different."

Of course there are some differences, though they are all invertebrates and many crustaceans play a similar role in the water to that of roaches on land.

"Lobsters and crabs: they don’t look like food to me either. Anything that’s crawling toward me, sideways, with big pincers you know—hey, that don’t make me hungry! In fact, my instinct is, ‘Step on that fuck! Step on that big thing, before he gets to the children!’ They look like they mean business." - George Carlin

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I never said "insects are fit for human consumption," but I will say Thomas_Sankara's last post (made up of a mix of cultural relativism, liberalism, pragmatism, ignorance and incomprehension, and topped with a pinch of insanity) is unfit for a response.

I've squandered enough time on this.

[Adi Shankara]

Did you find this out from him personally? Or was it something he wrote or said publicly that I simply missed?

you can kind've get that vibe from his writings and speeches, seeing as he said many times, to paraphrase "feeding the 7 million burkinabes is my utmost priority", I doubt he'd really care. I just don't think the idea was ever considered, but alas, we'll never know, and it's rather stupid to think of it all, to be honest.

I can say with 100% certainty that, especially given his early speeches when he was the leader of The Council of Popular Salvation in the early days of the revolution, that feeding Burkinabes, along with land redistribution (so they could feed themselves by growing things) was his life goal for Upper Volta.

[Adi Shankara]

Thomas_Sankara's last post (made up of a mix of cultural relativism, ignorance and incomprehension, and topped with a pinch of insanity) is unfit for a response.


Geez. that was corny.



but I guess that means you don't really have a response, except for baseless insults. whatever. can't convince the unwilling.

[Revy]

As a vegetarian, this is all a bit beyond me (and obviously I think that the main thing is re-distribution), but I do wonder how many of the people who won't eat insects do eat prawns, shrimps etc? I merely be missing something, but, is there any difference between a prawn and a cockroach?

Shrimp are crustaceans. I love eating shrimp and I like calling them the bugs of the sea, but there really is a big difference....shrimp are more like crab and lobster than any insect.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, and the difference between insects and crustaceans is... ?

Would you be happy about eating land-based arthropods that didn't have a 4-stage life-cycle (so, more like crabs and lobsters)? Say, spiders, scorpions, aphids?

[Adi Shankara]

Yeah, and the difference between insects and crustaceans is... ?

Would you be happy about eating land-based arthropods that didn't have a 4-stage life-cycle (so, more like crabs and lobsters)? Say, spiders, scorpions, aphids?

random, but my girlfriend says spiders are tasty :blink: spiders are one thing I don't think I could stomach, and indeed, they are pretty much only eaten by Khmers, but I guess I'll try them someday when I go to Cambodia.

[Dimentio]

I was thinking of this earlier, and brought it up in another thread.

I mean, insects take very little energy and water as far as cultivation goes (it takes nearly 3000 liters of water to produce a 150 grams of beef of beef, compared to one liter of water to produce the same weight in grasshoppers), so right there, that could aid in the reversal of soil erosion and drought.

also, insects produce and multiply very quickly, so there would be many harvests per year.

finally, when you consider how low the cost would be, it would be affordable to nearly everyone, (the amount of protein makes it easily the cheapest source) and I think insects could honestly prevent starvation and malnutrition in many cases.

hell, I don't see why Westerners shouldn't start eating them. My girlfriend of sorts who's from Cambodia introduced me to fried crickets, and they taste only like what they are fried in, if anything at all.

so what would the potential challenges to widespread insect cultivation be? what would be wrong with insects becoming the world's primary protein source?

EDIT:

Possibly yes. But a simpler way would be to not simply throw away the food surplus or destroy it, as it is working today. Already Earth was a whole is producing enough food for 12 billion people.

[Dimentio]

I know that Pentti Linkola is advocating insect eating - but hardly of compassion with poor people. Rather, he wants to destroy 99% of Earth's food production capacity in order to cause mass deaths amongst humans so nature could reclaim as much territory as possible.

He is insane.

[Adi Shankara]

I know that Pentti Linkola is advocating insect eating - but hardly of compassion with poor people. Rather, he wants to destroy 99% of Earth's food production capacity in order to cause mass deaths amongst humans so nature could reclaim as much territory as possible.

He is insane.

did he ever wonder if nature and humans are inseparable? I always wonder what makes those eco-nuts think that humans are not natural.

[Revy]

Yeah, and the difference between insects and crustaceans is... ?

Would you be happy about eating land-based arthropods that didn't have a 4-stage life-cycle (so, more like crabs and lobsters)? Say, spiders, scorpions, aphids?

I am not opposed to eating insects. and I would try it.

You brought up a roach but I think that was a bad example because nobody eats those, I have heard of spiders, scorpions, ants, termites and grasshoppers but never roaches. I would be open to trying all of those bugs but never a roach. that is just gross.

I just think that crustacean meat can't be compared to insects. Do insects even have meat on them? probably only a little....but what do I know, I've never eaten a bug in my life. although the FDA allows a certain number of insect pieces into food (little known fact)....

[Raúl Duke]

but I do wonder how many of the people who won't eat insects do eat prawns, shrimps etc? I merely be missing something, but, is there any difference between a prawn and a cockroach? I actually dislike lobster...etc.

Talking about food suggestions (one thread suggesting dog for Iraq, another suggesting insects for the world),I once read that green iguana would be an "environmentally friendly" meat and once they introduced the eating of it in Puerto Rico as a kind of grassroot tactic to get rid of the invasive non-native green iguana. It never took off...but in a way...I would try it.

But I would not eat insect.

[Glenn Beck]

Or, we could stop the subsidies and uneven food production that comes from so-called 'free trade', cancel foreign debt; and open up the surplus food storages that are held by both multinational companies, the IMF, the EU and the US.

Or we could do all that, plus fry up some roaches

[khad]

hey guys i just had an idea what if we had one big toilet and everyone in town had to shit and piss in it and we only flushed it once a month? it would help save water
Been there, done that.

[ckaihatsu]

hey guys i just had an idea what if we had one big toilet and everyone in town had to shit and piss in it and we only flushed it once a month? it would help save water


Well, okay, but only if we also have a corpse-eating plank in there as well...! And roaches!

We'll call it the "gross faction"...!!! (Let the fundraising begin!)


x D

x D

x D

[meow]

i dont know what the big fuss is. if we say that there is not enough food in the world (yes there is ignoring that for now) then what is wrong with suggesting another food source? if insects (including roachs) were raised for eating they would be just as healthy as other meat.

would not even have to eat them as is. could put them in processed food. people eat sausages and hot dogs. gross stuff in many of them already. if we dont have enough food... if people knew how meat was produced many would be disgusted. perhaps still eat it but maybe not.

and as for shell fish jews dont eat that. and i know other cultures dont either.

the difference between insects and dead people is that the second is not safe. not for eating. but if insects are grow to eat it would be safe.

[ckaihatsu]

but if insects are grow to eat it would be safe.


Y'*know*, I *do* do graphic design -- let's talk hourly rates...!

[Kotze]

Like with many ideas that make things more efficient, increasing the cake is one thing, that ordinary folks get more of the cake requires struggle.

That doesn't mean that the idea is stupid. It's an interesting idea, but because we live in an insane society it won't get adopted just because it has the potential to reduce world hunger, global warming, and suffering of the more intelligent animals such as cows (the last point is only a secondary goal to me, but when it comes for free with achieving more important goals I'm certainly not against it). A working marketing campaign for changing dietary habits in the rich countries would have to appeal to our most embarrassing cognitive peculiarities. Instead of the good reasons mentioned above, the multi-billion campaign would have to focus on our vanity. Does this food prevent me from getting fat? That is the most important question to many. What is also important is the price. In the beginning, it has to be really expensive and it must be assured that everybody sees stories about rich celebrities eating it. Then it can be slowly made cheaper and cheaper. That way, everybody will be happy. Our entirely worthless elite can enjoy the feeling of being the trend-setter, the poor, once they can afford it, will feel like getting wealthy. I'm not even totally joking.

I'm all for promoting a shift towards alternatives like trying insects or vegetarianism (not veganism though). My biggest hope at the moment is vat-grown meat, but maybe that's my technology fetish speaking. Like many commenters here I also see the problem that this, if not accompanied by struggle for socialism, couldn't guarantee to deliver any of the mentioned potential improvements. It's not like capitalists are running out of ideas when it comes to polluting the world.

[Adi Shankara]

Y'*know*, I *do* do graphic design -- let's talk hourly rates...!

You best be trolling, as your off-topic spam is rather annoying.

[Adi Shankara]

I notice that I haven't seen many good arguments for the opposing of mass-adoption eating insects, aside from "it's poor people food, so it's not fit for consumption", or "eating insects is uncivilized".

I can understand if someone doesn't want to eat insects or is grossed out by the idea, that's fine. everyone has their own tastes.

but to deny such a potential food source and say that they shouldn't be eaten at all? That's criminal.

[Robocommie]

I say we just let people decide for themselves, regionally, what food they produce. If a socialist Khmer or Laotian worker's government wants to cultivate locusts, then more power to them. Same for African socialist governments who want to cultivate mealy worms. I see no reason to tell them they can't, or shouldn't.

[Adi Shankara]

I say we just let people decide for themselves, regionally, what food they produce. If a socialist Khmer or Laotian worker's government wants to cultivate locusts, then more power to them. Same for African socialist governments who want to cultivate mealy worms. I see no reason to tell them they can't, or shouldn't.

I am against the imposition of anything by a foreign power onto another; however, I don't see any harm in the promotion and encouragement of seeing grasshoppers (since they are the healthiest of insects, the cleanest, and the most nutritious) as a potential protein supplement.

year 2050: Grasshoppers are the new wheat juice?

[Blackscare]

year 2050: Grasshoppers are the new wheat juice?

Sankara, I was sympathetic because I've eaten fried grasshopper and it's good, but if you throw those fuckers in a juicer we're gonna have problems.

[Robocommie]

I don't think cultivating insects is a solution for world hunger, because we have a solution for world hunger; distribution. As Sam B had pointed out in the thread about dogs, we actually have enough arable land to produce wheat, corn, rice, whatever, enough for everyone on earth. But price speculation and cash cropping, as well as a capitalist system of distribution, prevents it from being used to it's full effect.

[Adi Shankara]

Sankara, I was sympathetic because I've eaten fried grasshopper and it's good, but if you throw those fuckers in a juicer we're gonna have problems.

lol I was more referring to the idea that, who knows, in 2050 they could be the next big fad for increasingly obese westerners.


I don't think cultivating insects is a solution for world hunger, because we have a solution for world hunger; distribution. As Sam B had pointed out in the thread about dogs, we actually have enough arable land to produce wheat, corn, rice, whatever, enough for everyone on earth. But price speculation and cash cropping, as well as a capitalist system of distribution, prevents it from being used to it's full effect.

Yeah, I ended up coming to that conclusion myself, unfortunately. I figure that, if insect cultivation could actually solve world hunger, than the imperialist powers that be would just seize the methods of production from the poor once again, thus rendering such a venture useless.

if tomorrow, people could achieve food security by eating large amounts of dirt, next thing you know, there would be laws on the regulation of dirt and dirt would all of a sudden become a priced, controlled commodity in the hands of private corporate powers.

[RedStarOverChina]

I tried fried scorpions---Don't remember what it tastes like. But that's hardly the most objectionable thing you can eat in China. :)

[Adi Shankara]

I tried fried scorpions---Don't remember what it tastes like. But that's hardly the most objectionable thing you can eat in China. :)

my gf never tried those, but again, she thinks the fried spiders are good when covered in sriracha 0__O

[Robocommie]

if tomorrow, people could achieve food security by eating large amounts of dirt, next thing you know, there would be laws on the regulation of dirt and dirt would all of a sudden become a priced, controlled commodity in the hands of private corporate powers.

That's the funny thing; dirt IS a priced, controlled commodity. They call it potting soil. ;)

[∞]

Yes but if the poor have to resort to eating bugs, they need to revolt.

[Comrade Gwydion]

if you put the crickets in a dumpster, the anarchists will eat them.

This would be funny if it wasn't you who made the joke. f-off

[Kotze]

I notice that I haven't seen many good arguments for the opposing of mass-adoption eating insectsThere isn't really much to say against it.

There is the squick factor, but it's all a matter of perspective: I wonder how many people in the rich countries have actually seen the entire process of slaughtering a cow. What would sheltered western city kids do given the choice between eating a fried insect and following instructions to kill a pig and then eat its meat? I've seen grown men being squicked out by fish that wasn't of the rectangular kind...

[Blake's Baby]

Sadly, the number of people who think 'food' is created shink-wrapped with no pain and screaming is quite staggering. When my kid was little, he would say 'look mummy, dead pigs and cows' when we were out shopping. Other adults used to look at us in horror, as if we'd been telling him wicked lies to warp his brain. Shit, no, just the truth. Beef is sliced up bits of slaughtered cow. Who knew?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

This is really a very intresting question, first i must say (like manny other members allready menthioned) that there is no lack of food in the world right now. There is just a very f-up system that makes it profitable to destroy overproduction of food instead of giving it to hungry people.

Why people in the west dont eat insects its just a cultural factor just like muslims avoid pork and some tribes in the amazones dont eat deer because its a sacred animal. Thomas_Sankara has menthiond that insects are highly nutritius, they have a high percent of protein and are much more easally to digasted than for example a steak, they are also a good source for many minerals. I personally have tried snails (in France ofcourse) and must say that it was really tasty, unfortunatly it looked like shit :rolleyes:

But this is the thing if we just cooke it right it will tatse good, ofcourse you cant just dig in the goud take whatever moves and then swallow it when its trembling in your mouth, no ofcourse you can just east some ones specially selected like grasshoppers, ive also heard frome people who tried them that they are really good and reminds them of shrimp. Another note about grasshoppers is that they are one of the few animals that are concidered edible in Leviticus (old testament, Bible) so that means that orthodox jews cant eat pork ore wild game but grasshoppers are ok.

About the shrimp-taste insects closest realatives is shellfish (i know my formulation isnt totally biologically correct) and people who have eaten insects and tries to describe the taste often refer to shellfish. In that case it shouldnt be to hard to convince more people to eat them, since many people concider shellfish to be so tasty. Observe i dont want to force this on annyone (ore well it would be fun to se some royalties be forced to eat maggots, heheh) but i also, like TS, se that this could be a temporary solution to feed the starving until we will be able to change the current injustice system, and in a post-rev world why shouldnt we try to use a healthy and tasty (if its coocked right) natural resource?

[DaComm]

I was thinking of this earlier, and brought it up in another thread.

I mean, insects take very little energy and water as far as cultivation goes (it takes nearly 3000 liters of water to produce a 150 grams of beef of beef, compared to one liter of water to produce the same weight in grasshoppers), so right there, that could aid in the reversal of soil erosion and drought.

also, insects produce and multiply very quickly, so there would be many harvests per year.

finally, when you consider how low the cost would be, it would be affordable to nearly everyone, (the amount of protein makes it easily the cheapest source) and I think insects could honestly prevent starvation and malnutrition in many cases.

hell, I don't see why Westerners shouldn't start eating them. My girlfriend of sorts who's from Cambodia introduced me to fried crickets, and they taste only like what they are fried in, if anything at all.

so what would the potential challenges to widespread insect cultivation be? what would be wrong with insects becoming the world's primary protein source?

EDIT:

That's a spectacular idea, comrade! I'm already fond of cicada's, although the problem with them is that they come out only once every 17 years :(. Frankly I see no problem with the idea, as they are in super-abundance and no amont of Capitalist productivity hindrance/limitation or economic crisis' can change that. What pat of a hopper do you eat?

[Adi Shankara]

What part of a hopper do you eat?

the body. I know in Cambodia, the proper way to prepare them is to chop off the heads (since they're really big, some the size of ), take off the wings and deep fry them. they come out tasting alot like french fries, but in my opinion, the texture is more like a funion lol (the ones I had were dehydrated then fried).

http://img1.photographersdirect.com/img/23074/wm/pd2082478.jpg

That's what they look like. large land shrimp. I think if we renamed "grasshoppers" into "land-shrimp" no one would have any stigma about eating them anymore. In fact, if I'm correct (which I'm probably not, lol but apparently it's a folk entomology), I think the Khmer word for shrimp (Chaangret) basically means something along the lines of "field prawn".

[scarletghoul]

what food shortages

[danyboy27]

those who think no capitalists could exploit insect has a source of food need to think again.

from what i saw in a documentary, the growing middle class in china is really fond of insect and exotic annimals, something about the long lasting tradition of cantonese food i guess.

[Ele'ill]

Stand up fight back! against insect repression...


It's a good idea in regards to survival and I appreciate it when people spend time thinking about alternatives.

[chegitz guevara]

No one here is denying people the right to eat bugs. The vast majority of us just ain't gonna do it ... unless we've no other choice.

I'm not interested in trying, just as I've no interest in eating fish sperm, which is food in some parts of the world.

I've seen attempts at people trying to get Westerners to consider eating it for decades. Maybe it will happen, but I doubt it. When people have the opportunity to eat meat, they very often do. That's because meat is very healthy for us, and quite digestible. Our bodies reward us for eating meat by making us happy. Countries where people can eat lots of meat tend to be very stable. Take a way people's meat, and you're going to have a revolution ... and they eat you.

[Adi Shankara]

Countries where people can eat lots of meat tend to be very stable.

with pastoral countries like Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Somalia being the best examples! (never mind that mostly vegetarian India has never had a violent coup in it's history, and is still a stable, peaceful democracy)


Is it just me, or did you pull that out of your ass?

[Ele'ill]

That's because meat is very healthy for us, and quite digestible. Our bodies reward us for eating meat by making us happy. Countries where people can eat lots of meat tend to be very stable. Take a way people's meat, and you're going to have a revolution ... and they eat you.


This is incorrect on nearly ten thousand different levels. I will post later pending your response.

[chegitz guevara]

with pastoral countries like Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Somalia being the best examples! (never mind that mostly vegetarian India has never had a violent coup in it's history, and is still a stable, peaceful democracy)

Oh, right, because India's history begins in 1947. :rolleyes:

Also, the word tend means, not universal, just more often than not. And, for much of its history, those countries actually were quite stable. Sure, they're basket cases now, but that's a product of colonialism and post-colonialism.


This is incorrect on nearly ten thousand different levels. I will post later pending your response.

And I'll tear it apart.

[Adi Shankara]

Oh, right, because India's history begins in 1947. :rolleyes:

Also, the word tend means, not universal, just more often than not. And, for much of its history, those countries actually were quite stable. Sure, they're basket cases now, but that's a product of colonialism and post-colonialism

Afghanistan hasn't been stable since the fall of Gandhara. in fact, Afghanistan has been, more or less, lawless for most of it's history since that event, and has been conquered no less than 20 times.

and India has been a relatively stable society for most of it's history, even since Asoka. You have zero proof to back up any of the bullshit you say, and would like to see you support your statements.

[danyboy27]

hoo shit, another veggies vs meat eater debate.

guys, could you please, i dont know, make another topic to discuss the issue instead of messing up this one??

[Adi Shankara]

hoo shit, another veggies vs meat eater debate.

guys, could you please, i dont know, make another topic to discuss the issue instead of messing up this one??

I'm not making such an argument, it's more just that it's obvious "Guevara" is making up statistics as he goes. he makes really subjective conclusions without any proof. it reminds me of the white nationalists on stormfront who make up shit as they go.

[chegitz guevara]

First, on India you said peaceful, not stable. Second, I said tend, not universal, so take that stick out of your ass. India was in a state of more or less constant war until the British conquered the country, and even then, the country remained fairly violent (The Sepoy Rebellion, the suppression of the Thugee, the independence struggle). Since independence, peace loving India has been involved in multiple wars with its neighbors, suppressed the populations of several states, and is currently oppressing its least developed citizens. Yep, vegetarianism sure leads to peace and stability. You got me!

As far as Afghanistan goes, It's been a succession of dynasties, most of them until the 18th Century, very strong. Timur, Babur, the Lodi, etc. The dynasties of Afghanistan tended to last a long time, and when Nadir Shah of Persia decided to invade, they kicked his but all the way back to Tehran. The 20th Century hasn't been kind to them, especially the later half, but recent developments do not deny a thousand year trend.

[Adi Shankara]

First, on India you said peaceful, not stable. Second, I said tend, not universal, so take that stick out of your ass. India was in a state of more or less constant war until the British conquered the country, and even then, the country remained fairly violent (The Sepoy Rebellion, the suppression of the Thugee, the independence struggle). Since independence, peace loving India has been involved in multiple wars with its neighbors, suppressed the populations of several states, and is currently oppressing its least developed citizens. Yep, vegetarianism sure leads to peace and stability. You got me!

As far as Afghanistan goes, It's been a succession of dynasties, most of them until the 18th Century, very strong. Timur, Babur, the Lodi, etc. The dynasties of Afghanistan tended to last a long time, and when Nadir Shah of Persia decided to invade, they kicked his but all the way back to Tehran. The 20th Century hasn't been kind to them, especially the later half, but recent developments do not deny a thousand year trend.

I feel so dumb for arguing with an idiot who thinks that the consumption of red meat is the solution to end all wars, poverty, and oppression.

[gorillafuck]

You obviously have to start with stray dogs and work your way down. You'll have to eat groundhogs, raccoons, cats, and rats before you can get to the sweet fried cricket goodness.
Crickets? Nah, cicadas are the money insect.

Edit: Anyone who thinks that whether a country is predominantly vegetarian or predominantly non-vegetarian effects how peaceful it is needs to be hit by the reality train.

[danyboy27]

india is not majoritary vegeratian anyway, 30% is not a majority.

[Ele'ill]

And I'll tear it apart.

Best of luck to you.

I'll post later, possibly tomorrow.

[AK]

That's what they look like. large land shrimp. I think if we renamed "grasshoppers" into "land-shrimp" no one would have any stigma about eating them anymore.
So you're going to hide the truth from people in order to get them to eat bugs? And besides, people tend to have reservations about eating anything that they've not known to exist, is meant to live in the sea and looks strangely like an insect. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think many people would eat anything called "land-shrimp". You'd have a better chance of serving me some sea-gorillas.

[Adi Shankara]

So you're going to hide the truth from people in order to get them to eat bugs? And besides, people tend to have reservations about eating anything that they've not known to exist, is meant to live in the sea and looks strangely like an insect. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think many people would eat anything called "land-shrimp". You'd have a better chance of serving me some sea-gorillas.

No, I'm just saying there is a stigma with certain words. it's not deception, just a PR campaign :P and I was speaking of Khmer, which calls them that basically.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think many people would eat anything called "land-shrimp".


They'd *stop* that damn starving if we marketed them as "Magic Morsels"...!


x D

[Guerrilla22]

I don't believe insects are the answer after all there isn't much there to eat. I believe a better solution would be for developing countries to round up all the strays and then feed it to the population.

[ckaihatsu]

I believe a better solution would be for developing countries to round up all the strays and then feed it to the population.


* Phew! *

Glad *that's* over -- guess we're *post*-revolutionaries now...!

( 8^ |


X D

[incogweedo]

well i was in a hottopic once, checking out the shirts when the man working asked me if i wanted to try a fried grub. I tried one (bbq flavor) and loved it, i even bought a small box :laugh: but point is, i don't think it could end world hunger, but maybe help solve it.

[Slavoj Zizzle]

No offense but if you don't understand that third world starvation, factory farming, and unequal resource distribution are the direct result of globalization and the inherent self-destructive contradictions of Capitalism what are you doing on a Marxist forum? The idea, while nice, totally misses the point and sounds like something Bono or some other liberal would say :(

[khad]

Did someone say land shrimp?

http://blog.peta2.com/desktop_flounder_peta2.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

i don't think it could end world hunger, but maybe help solve it.


Ummmmmmm, - yeah -

...





end

v.tr.
1. To bring to a conclusion.
2. To form the last or concluding part of: the song that ended the performance.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/end



solve

1. To find a solution to.
2. To work out a correct solution to (a problem).


3. solve - settle, as of a debt; "clear a debt"; "solve an old debt"

clear
square off, square up, settle, determine - settle conclusively; come to terms; "We finally settled the argument"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solve


So now what?

[meow]

I don't believe insects are the answer after all there isn't much there to eat. I believe a better solution would be for developing countries to round up all the strays and then feed it to the population.
i guess you not serious. but the problem with this is that not safe. not hygenic. "stray" animals may have many desieces such as rabies or similar. bad idea basically. now farming "pet" animals (such as dogs) is different. farming done right gives safe food.

[AK]

Did someone say land shrimp?

http://blog.peta2.com/desktop_flounder_peta2.jpg
Why don't mods ever get infractions for posting off-topic images, hmm?

[gorillafuck]

Why don't mods ever get infractions for posting off-topic images, hmm?
Because this thread is absurd.

[Adi Shankara]

No offense but if you don't understand that third world starvation, factory farming, and unequal resource distribution are the direct result of globalization and the inherent self-destructive contradictions of Capitalism what are you doing on a Marxist forum? The idea, while nice, totally misses the point and sounds like something Bono or some other liberal would say :(

I've repeatedly said I didn't think about that before. and that in the end, capitalists would just seize the mode of production, so it would be a moot point. read again what I wrote.

[∞]

No, I found something better than insects....Cassavas! Vegans can eat them too!
http://huberb.people.cofc.edu/Classroom%20Visuals/325%20Visuals/Mesoamerican%20Plants/Manioc%20root.jpg

http://www.croptrust.org/documents/newsletter/img_news_no9/Cassava-distribution.PNG

[Adi Shankara]

But everyone already eats Cassavas...here it's just called Tapioca :P

[Invincible Summer]

Cassava chips are excellent

[Adi Shankara]

Cassava chips are excellent

They are...but the best vegetable of that class when prepared specially? have some french fried yams covered in ginger, sugar, and salt. so fucking bomb.

[Ele'ill]

Did someone say land shrimp?

http://blog.peta2.com/desktop_flounder_peta2.jpg


http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008twoelkvailfire.jpg


Also-


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/08/18471068.php


:laugh::laugh:

[∞]

Guys I'm serious, mass-producing cassavas can feed alot of people, they're adequate in well...everything:thumbup1:

[Pretty Flaco]

I always used to wish that they could use missle technology to launch food into starving areas...
Like "Molotov Bread Baskets", but actually bread. :redstar2000:

[∞]

I always used to wish that they could use missle technology to launch food into starving areas...
Like "Molotov Bread Baskets", but actually bread. :redstar2000:

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/15/633676176353458617-CoolStoryBro.jpg

[S.Artesian]

This could be a serious solution to world hunger though. there is no other protein source as easily cultivated, as widely available, and more affordable than any other protein source.


Not under capitalism, it isn't. World hunger isn't caused by natural shortages. It is a social condition.