SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Study finds insect shows promise as a good, sustainable food source:
With global food demands rising at an alarming rate, a study led by IUPUI [( Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis)] scientists has found new evidence that a previously overlooked insect shows promise as alternative protein source: the yellow mealworm.
The research is based upon a new analysis of the genome of the mealworm species Tenebrio molitor led by Christine Picard, associate professor of biology and director in Forensic and Investigative Sciences program at the School of Science at IUPUI.
[...] "Human populations are continuing to increase and the stress on protein production is increasing at an unsustainable rate, not even considering climate change," said Picard, whose lab focuses on the use of insects to address global food demand.
The research, conducted in partnership with Beta Hatch Inc., has found the yellow mealworm—historically a pest—can provide benefit in a wide range of agriculture applications. Not only can it can be used as an alternative source of protein for animals including fish, but its waste is also ideal as organic fertilizer.
[...] "Mealworms, being insects, are a part of the natural diet of many organisms," said Picard. "Fish enjoy mealworms, for example. They could also be really useful in the pet food industry as an alternative protein source. Chickens like insects—and maybe one day humans will, too, because it's an alternative source of protein."
Journal Reference:
T. Eriksson, et al. The yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) genome: a resource for the emerging insects as food and feed industry [open], Journal of Insects as Food and Feed (DOI: 10.3920/jiff2019.0057)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:31PM (48 children)
Why would more CO2 lead to less food?
(Score: 5, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:36PM (24 children)
All things in moderation.
Too much CO2 causes the planet to warm. We are already seeing the signs of this.
Shocking as this may be, it turns out that plants need MORE than just CO2 in order to grow!
One major thing plants need is a suitable climate and water.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:50PM (23 children)
Warm climates are also suitable for plants. As is more water.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:00PM
There are limits to warm. Also there are limits to water. Just as there are limits to CO2.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:29AM (21 children)
Warm climates are also suitable for some plants. Which is entirely the point.
If the planet gets warmer, some places are going to become uninhabitable, and the people who currently live there are going to want to move somewhere else, which will be... difficult.
"Warmer climate means more food" is simplistic enough to be almost entirely wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:37AM (20 children)
Like where?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:39AM
Portland, Seattle, Chicago, New York, Kenosha...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:56AM (18 children)
Like Bangladesh (for example).
India is not going to react well when 190 million people need a new place to live, because their old one is under water.
The people who live in Louisiana (another example) will probably have fewer problems, but it still won't be fun for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:09AM (14 children)
I'm in Louisiana and it will be fine. The Mississippi already rose 6 meters in the last 100 years as population and economic growth soared the most in recorded history.
Other places can do the same.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:22AM (13 children)
Climate scientists think you're wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:35AM (12 children)
They are scared of 1 meter of sea level rise per century when we already deal with 6 without much issue, who cares?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:54AM (11 children)
Oh yeah, scientists? What do they know?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:36AM (9 children)
Based on their track record, not much.
(Score: 5, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:05AM (8 children)
No, I understand.
Those people who study this sort of stuff are wrong, but that guy on Fox News (who totally has your best interests at heart) knows what's really going on.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:21AM (3 children)
I don't watch fox snooze. But you can look around you and see how much the scientists are helping you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @06:11AM (2 children)
Heh, so many people playing peekaboo with disaster.
Where did it go? THERE IT ISSSS! ooga booga widdle wumpty
Seriously, the problems get more dire every year yet people such as yourself just say "I don't see any problems, everything seems fine to meeeee." It is the sucky part of humans, we're so terrible at comprehending long term trends. It takes education, patience, and an open mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:52PM (1 child)
No. The water raised 6 meters and guess what was done? The problem was fixed by engineering not whining and years of propaganda campaigns.
Just like covid, the problem should already be fixed. The covid patients basically have scurvy and oxygen deficiency. So correct it with vitamin c and hbot. THE END. But this will never be done, because the people supposedly trying to solved the problem will only choose the most expensive and dangerous way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @06:49PM
You need to buy stronger petards. The cheap shit ain't working.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:48PM (3 children)
Doesn't sound like you do.
Economists study economics, but that hasn't stopped you from concluding they are generically wrong. Here:
There are ways people can be wrong than ignorance.
Here, the big thing is that there is a widespread bias for alarming climate scenarios - because that's where the funding is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:49PM
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @09:35PM (1 child)
The difference being that economics is not really a science.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @02:56AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:11PM
They know what the grant-givers want. No other knowledge is asked for at present.
https://reason.com/2018/10/03/dog-rape-hoax-papers-pluckrose-lindsay/ [reason.com]
(Score: 2) by Aegis on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:25PM (2 children)
Yep, they're lucky to have a bunch of blue state money and college educated engineers to bail them out (possibly literally).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:54PM (1 child)
Maybe you should look up the history of the levees. It is a great example of how to deal with rising water levels.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday September 02 2020, @09:37PM
It's not really "great", it's more like adequate. Until the republicans take over and refuse to spend the money needed to maintain the levees, then it's not even that.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:02PM (20 children)
Because while CO2 enables plants to make more carbohydrates, e.g. cellulose, it doesn't help them make more proteins, which is really pretty much the limiting factor. It's why we use so much ammonia in fertilizers. Also a warmer planet tends to be a dryer planet. There are lots of quibbles about that last one, though, as it's highly situational, but that's the average result. It also doesn't result in increased availability of other needed minerals.
The result of all that is that plants tend to grow larger and bushier, but less nutritious/pound. If you're starving, and the increase isn't only in cellulose, then this may be an advantage. Otherwise not.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:27PM (7 children)
The warmest places on earth are the wettest, and the coldest are deserts. So doesn't seem like more warm places means drier, especially if all that water trapped in the ice caps evaporates.
And why is nitrogen going away? Nitrogen fixation is increased when it warms: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4992079/ [nih.gov]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:04PM (4 children)
Death Valley, while warm, doesn't seem very wet to me. What warmer places on Earth were you thinking of?
Antarctica, while cold, doesn't seem like a desert to me. What colder places on Earth were you thinking of?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:45PM
I was thinking of then equator, which is the warmest and wettest place on earth. And the poles, which are the driest and coldest.
And just because something doesn't seem like a desert to you doesn't mean anything, go look it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:46PM (1 child)
He (not me) was maybe referring to the Antarctic Dry Valleys [wikipedia.org]. But they're only a tiny part of Antarctica.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:52PM
Here is what it looks like when it is warm and wet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle#/media/File%3A%E1%9E%96%E1%9F%92%E1%9E%9A%E1%9F%83%E1%9E%80%E1%9E%98%E1%9F%92%E1%9E%96%E1%9E%BB%E1%9E%87%E1%9E%B6.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Here is dry and cold: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_desert#/media/File%3AAntarcticaDomeCSnow.jpg [wikipedia.org]
Yet supposedly making it warmer and wetter is going to look like the second?
(Score: 3, Informative) by anotherblackhat on Tuesday September 01 2020, @11:20PM
Seems like the largest desert in the world to me, but let me google that for you ... https://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+antarctica+a+desert [lmgtfy.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:10PM (1 child)
Please take the time to read a few real books on how the climate works, you ignorance is painful to read.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:48PM
I know plants like warm, wet climates with lots of CO2. Somehow releasing CO2 and warming the earth to release craploads of water locked in ice is going to be bad for plants. The stuff you believe is the opposite of reality.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:53PM (8 children)
That doesn't make sense. If average temperatures are higher, more water will evaporate and form clouds (assuming the water covering 2/3rd's of the Earth's surface doesn't leave Earth). More rain means more erosion and increased availability of needed minerals.
But we don't have to guess about that. Average temperatures during the time of the dinosaurs, the Cretaceous, were 4 degrees higher than now and yet it was humid and abundant in plant life. Many species of dinosaur grew to large sizes, so if hotter climate means less nutrition in the biome then they ought to have been smaller than species now. None of us know what tomorrow will be like, but the fossil record contradicts the premise that "a warmer planet tends to be a dryer planet."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:31AM (6 children)
All of this fails to address the real problem of climate change. Yes, the Earth has been hotter (and colder) in the past. Yes, life continued and will definitely continue post-climate change.
What is different is that we have never had billions of people living on coastlines that will soon be underwater if we continue along our current path, growing all of our food through farms that rely on the current climate in their current locations. It is simply impractical to suggest that we all pick up and move 50 kilometres inland, and that we move all of our grain production (for example) up to where we used to grow bananas and pineapples.
Humanity will survive climate change, but our current way of living will change dramatically for the worse and billions may die in the process. That is what we are trying to avoid.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:25AM (1 child)
Depends on your definition of "soon". Moving a couple of meters up the shoreline every century isn't going to collapse society. We might lose some iconic buildings but normal redevelopment can take care of most of rebuilding on slightly higher ground.
What we should be doing, if you really believe sea level rise is a threat, is passing a law that says there will be no government compensation for ocean flooding for any building built from this point forward. You want to risk building where it might flood, that's your problem, you don't get to unload it on society.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:13PM
Years ago, the government did something similar with redefining where the flood planes were. But, that was something that happened during the Obama administration, so immediately all the racists that inhabit the Republican party objected. Technicually people could still build in the flood plain, it's just that their hopes for being compensated in case of floods were greatly diminished. Given the amount of flooding now versus 30 years ago, it was a move that should have already happened.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:12PM (2 children)
Humans are highly adaptible, highly mobile, and highly interconnected. Do you starve if there's a local drought? No, you probably don't even notice, because the supermarket sources the food from Chile or Canada or some other place. If climate change means the container ships start moving less in this direction and more in that, well, we'll deal with it. With only today's technological capabilities, we can handle it. With tomorrow's, we'll do even better.
There's also the question of rate of change. If sea level jumps 50 feet everywhere tomorrow, then you are correct that "billions may die in the process," but that's a florid scenario. What's much more likely to be the case is that it will creep up over generations. Short, by a geologist's or climatologist's standards, but long by a normal human's.
We definitely should live lighter on the Earth. We should stop burning fossil fuels, and we should consume less as individuals for a whole host of reasons. But let's refrain from panic. Life will be fine. The Earth will be fine. Humanity will be fine.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:18PM (1 child)
That's a rather dangerous attitude to have here. We may figure out how to deal with it or we may not. You're assuming that we will get it figured out quickly enough, but the reality is that at some point we may cause a problem that is so significant and/or fast that we can't solve it in time. And even if we do manage to solve it, there's no guarantee that there won't be mass starvation in the meantime while trying to implement it.
At some point, we may well find that things are shifting so quickly that we can't move the infrastructure fast enough to keep up. A local drought is one thing, we can just grow food elsewhere, but when it's huge swathes of the planet becoming inhospitable it may turn permanently unusable for agriculture the way that the Sahara did.
This is one of the reasons why it's so foolish to rely on technology to solve the climate crisis without doing what we can to reduce emissions as much as practical. We can pretty much always cut emissions by simply powering down most of the equipment that's emitting carbon dioxide, but making things more efficient is a much harder task to accomplish.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @03:01PM
Evidence for this "reality"? I'll point out that we have plenty of evidence that we can adapt to a lot of problems pretty quickly.
What makes you think we're not already doing that? There's an awful lot of poor people who can't eat reduced emissions, for example.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @04:35AM
Over the course of a couple of centuries or more. Come on.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:35AM
There were, indeed, places where plants were abundant. But the deserts were HUGE!!
Still, the time of the dinosaurs wouldn't be a good example, even if it backed you up. (It doesn't.) The distribution of land masses was very different, and also, partially because of that, the ocean currents. There's a lot more green areas now than there was at the time of the dinosaurs. You're thinking of the equivalent of the jungles of Africa, and ignoring the veldt and the Sahara (and the Kalahari). Yes, those places exist. But they aren't most of the planet.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @02:37PM (2 children)
In other words, an already solved problem. Who would have thought that if your plants aren't getting enough nitrogen in the soil, then you need to add nitrogen to the soil?
Rather that the places where we grow the most food, like the US or Russia, for example, are thought to experience less rainfall with more warming. We'll see if those climate models are accurate.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 03 2020, @06:01PM (1 child)
Sorry, but it's not a "solved problem". Making ammonia is expensive in the quantities needed. Also fertilizers high in nitrogen tend to be explosive when mishandled. Also it's another example of "the law of the minimum". If you add what was at minimum, you're likely to find the next limit snapping at your heels before you've made significant progress.
FWIW, the improper use of nitrogen fertilizers is already one of the major causes of "dead zones" where rivers drain agricultural areas. Not exactly a "solved problem".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @11:41PM
It still means the problem is solved. Then you're on to the next limit and fixing that as well.
Because there's no such thing as proper use of nitrogen fertilizers?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:28PM (1 child)
https://www.ehn.org/carbon-dioxide-makes-food-less-healthy-2598739140.html [ehn.org]
It is already leading to food being less healthy.
tldr: More CO2 means more sugar production, more energy, yay. However, the same amount of nutrients are diluted in more carbs, boo.
So while global warming isn't making your food less healthy, global CO2 concentrations are causing both.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @03:08PM
The money quote:
It's not a significant effect.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:45PM (6 children)
Leaves more steak for the bourgeoisie!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:20PM (1 child)
The fortune cookie at this time is quite appropriate:
> What is food to one, is to others bitter poison. -- Titus Lucretius Caru
In my low rent hippie days, someone bought a large bag of rice and left it in a communal kitchen. Little meal worms(??) got in. Someone put the rice in a metal pot and then in the oven at a high enough temperature to kill the worms. Presto! High protein rice...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:53PM
Hope you washed it.
Or else, you got rice sautéed in a rich wormshit sauce.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:21PM (2 children)
Even without cow meat, Trump can still get his Big Macs. (who knows what they put in those sandwiches)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:54PM
I think they already don't put beef in Big Macs.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:55PM
Soylent Green.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:01PM
Eat your bugs, goy!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:50PM (12 children)
Just today, I was wondering when the Left was going to tell me yet again that I was doomed to eat bugs.
Right on schedule!
Please don't let me start feeling too good about myself.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:06PM (11 children)
Rightwing nutjobs make everything political then turn around and tell everyone to stop making things political.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:10PM (10 children)
Nobody sane [researchgate.net] is going to start eating bugs.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:27PM
That was an easy web search:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly [rationalwiki.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:07PM (7 children)
Most people unknowingly eat insect parts in cake decorations and don't seem to mind, until you point out the facts to them.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:27PM (5 children)
The whole aversion to eating insects is cultural. There are many cultures that consider it normal, in some the local giant spiders are considered a delicacy, and yet those same people will refuse to eat a bird egg.
I've eaten insects, after the initial "augh! I'm eating bugs!" it rapidly became "meh, could use a little salt".
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:02PM (1 child)
I think the OP is referring to cochineal.
It's a bright red colorant. Purely Organic. No known carcinogenic effects. And made from bugs.
Many of the food dyes we make in labs ARE carcinogenic.
And it's prime purpose is just to make the product visually appealing.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:06PM
Sorry, Pinky, that was meant for your parent.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:32AM
Mealworms, baked, taste just like popcorn.
Unbaked, yeah... could use salt: they are chewy and chewy and chewy....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Kitsune008 on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:34AM
I second that motion...
On a trip into Mexico in my college days, I got the chance to try roasted scorpions.
Pluck the stingers off, toss onto the coals of a fire until they sizzle and pop, then enjoy!
Tastes like dry-roasted cashews...seriously. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:22PM
And the whole drive to feed them to commoners isn't? Can you say "ritual humiliation"?
The worms that we eat or not, are not the problem. The worms who want the power to decide what we eat or not, very much are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:28AM
Look up the standards for allowable insect parts in chocolate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:21PM
Why not? There's nothing wrong with eating bugs as long as they're free of diseases, that's more or less just like anything else we eat.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by looorg on Tuesday September 01 2020, @06:52PM (8 children)
So in this analogy humans are like chickens? Or they hope that one day will be the case? Eating other humans would be a great alternative source of proteins to. That just isn't suggested as commonly, but I seem to recall that similar news to this have been discussed here a few time earlier. In the end it always comes down to the "yuck-factor". People in general are somewhat revolted by the idea of eating bugs and that just isn't going to change anytime soon. No matter how many yummy proteins the little critters contain, simply cause cow-proteins (or insert animal of your choice here) are just so much yummier. That said there are people that do enjoy it and for them it might be great. But that this should somehow become the food of the common man is more or less some kind of pipe dream.
But her name is Picard so perhaps she can just make it so!
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:02PM (4 children)
"humans would be a great alternative source of proteins"
Nah, humans just don't cut it as a food animal for the same reason cattle aren't as much bang for the feed buck. Chickens are more efficient at converting a higher percentage of the calories they eat to harvestable meat. Humans are a lot more like pigs or cattle. So, you have to feed us a lot more to fatten us up to be ready for market.
Sorry, no "long pig" bonanza as a way out of our food availability woes. Besides, who'd want to have that argument about who gets dinner and who gets to be dinner with something that can shoot a firearm as well as you can?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Bot on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:17PM (1 child)
>Nah, humans just don't cut it as a food
THIS IS (kick) SOOYLEEENT!!!
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:30PM
Not even remotely surprised you would use that reference.
Shittiest movie ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2020, @08:48PM (1 child)
Hogs are actually one of (I want to say THE) best animals in terms of converting feed to meat, and they grow faaast.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday September 03 2020, @09:40PM
Hogs are certainly better than cattle (by a factor of 2 or so), but less feed efficient than chickens or fish (which exceed hogs by a factor of 2 for chickens and up to 3 or so for fish).
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:07PM (2 children)
I'm inclined to suspect that that yuck-factor is mainly cultural, so nurture rather than nature. I say this because since turning vegetarian and then vegan, I now have a huge yuck-factor at the thought of eating animal organs. As a child it didn't bother me hugely.
Just because it's cultural and can change though, doesn't mean it will for the majority of the population. I suspect (and hope) that veganism will continue to expand faster than this.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:09PM (1 child)
That cultural difference in the acceptability of eating bugs is probably related to how affluent you are, or even merely satisfied with enough food, versus a culture of people who regularly go hungry.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:25PM
It's probably one of those U shaped curves where it goes way down as you approach middle class and then goes up again as these things become optional delicacies. It's funny how "delicacy" effectively means "nasty stuff that you wouldn't normally want to eat, but you're eating it now because you have so much money that you can prove the point by eating things that nobody in their right mind would want to eat."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by oumuamua on Tuesday September 01 2020, @07:43PM
I've always argued it was right in the gist if not in the details but now it sounds like the details are matching up.
Global food demands not keeping up with supply is exactly what was warned.
And sorry, 'eat these worms' and it'll all work out is not an option.
https://capx.co/fifty-years-on-the-population-bomb-is-as-wrong-as-ever [capx.co]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:25PM (6 children)
Fuck off I'm not eating bugs.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:12PM (5 children)
People who have endured famine,
people who have been in some of the world's worst prisons or concentration camps,
they will tell you that if you get hungry enough you'll eat just about anything.
Boiling shoe leather to make it chewable. Or eating the feces of certain animals.
Don't not never say: never
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:19PM
Long, long ago, I seem to remember news of famines in Ethiopia. Newsweek magazine photos of some of the above come to mind when I wrote the above post.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:12AM (2 children)
A gentle reminder you can get with the program, eat the bugs, and live in a nice pod, or you can resist until we throw you in a concentration camp and you eat the bugs anyway.
Subtle, I like it.
Now fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @06:14AM (1 child)
Easy there frightened child, no one wants to throw you in a camp or force you to eat bugs.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:03PM
The other AC, assuming they are different, should be gently and politely escorted, into a nice re-education facility, and offered a chef prepared buffet of delectable bug based foods. That would be a completely different thing than what the other AC describes.
The only thing the person would be forced to do is to program in Java.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrentDavey on Wednesday September 02 2020, @03:33PM
Too late. Had a protein bar or shake lately?
You will not eat any bugs a la carte but you eat insect powder since it'll go into recipes calling for protein.
Bottom line costs will be lower for Big Food so you're gonna eat 'em. And you'll like it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @08:59PM (1 child)
I guess I could get used to eating fried mealworms with teriyaki sauce garnished with green onions and rice on the side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:36PM
I tried those fried worms as a bar snack in the East, they tasted pretty damn good but it would take me a little while to get over my brain's stubborn insistence on gagging.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Tuesday September 01 2020, @09:54PM (6 children)
How do you gut them?
Because if you don't, you're eating stuff that even worms consider waste. Long term, that can be bad for you... who know if among the millions of metabolites in their gut, is something toxic or damaging to us in the long term? And that's not even considering viral or bacterial cross-species infections.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:31AM (2 children)
I have wondered about this aspect of eating organisms whole. Do we (in the west) already eat any organisms whole?
I suspect that if eating insects were commonplace we would cook them first to kill off any microorganisms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @01:48AM
Yes, smelts, little fish.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 02 2020, @11:40PM
Oysters?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @06:40AM
This is why we cook our food.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2020, @08:52PM (1 child)
Just like conventional livestock, mealworms and other insects are not fed for a period of time before processing (by freezing in the case of insects usually).
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Tuesday September 22 2020, @12:36PM
Thanks, didn't know
But still: conventional livestock is still gutted before cooking. Mealworms and insects aren't .. so we're still eating (cooked) partly digested food and metabolites
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:04PM (11 children)
First, global food demands are not rising at an alarming rate. They rise with the population. Second, modern farmers are incredibly productive, and will continue to become more productive as automation and other technology improves. Third, Chicken Littles have been predicting the demise of human civilization by starvation for a long time, and men like Norman Borlaug keep finding ways to improve food production.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @10:26PM (3 children)
We're a long way off from engineering our own biosphere. Technology will allow larger yields/worker, not larger yields/acre.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:38AM (1 child)
It will allow both.
Good enough robots will allow mixed plantings, where the plants complement each other, and the robots go through and selectively harvest whatever is ready without damaging the rest. Agriculture should transition to a process of continual harvest rather than grow a vast field of monoculture and then visit an apocalypse on it to harvest a percentage in one big surge.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:46AM
MOD PARENT OPTIMAL BEEP BOOP 🤖
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2020, @04:46AM
Already false. Remember men like Norman Borlaug? They already did that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 01 2020, @11:55PM (1 child)
The problem is not people starving, the problem is the world can’t support everyone eating meat, especially considering global warming.
Are you willing to eat meat once or twice a week?
https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/meat-protein-chain-042332/ [zmescience.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:12AM
Also resiliency to food shortages that could appear as climate change changes some areas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:57AM
Every developing country absolutely cannot do this
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update102 [earth-policy.org]
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:42AM
Yes, off course, there is no problem at all to produce more food of pretty much any kind as long as there is energy available. If humans on this planet are to stand packed as in Mecca during Ramadan, the space above them is enough to produce food to feed them; again, giving enough energy is available.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 02 2020, @04:11AM (2 children)
Let's not forget that nearly half of what we produce is thrown away, and that all shortages are due to corruption in the supply chain. There is no technical reason for anybody to ever go hungry. It's all politics.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2020, @12:33PM (1 child)
Right now there's no reason for anybody to go hungry other than politics. That's not necessarily the case. It's going to depend on things like how quickly the world population stops growing. It's also going to depend on how the weather changes, if the areas that are easiest to irrigate no longer get enough rain and the rain gets shifted to areas that are more concentrated, you could easily start to see issues with food production. I'm not sure why all the idiots on the right seem to think that we should wait until it is a disaster to start working to avoid it.
It's entirely possible that by the time this sort of thing does become an issue that the population will be dropping anyways. But, by the same token, the kind of ignorant views that would have us delay action until it's clear that we have to is why we're likely to need to. Had we addressed our emissions back in the '70s rather than allowing for the fossil fuel industry to gaslight us, the pain and suffering of cutting back would have been significantly less. Not only would we have had nearly 50 years of reduced emissions, we also wouldn't have had as much increase in the amount of emissions. In both areas we would have more room for making changes that would be less painful.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday September 02 2020, @02:10PM
No, it's not. We already produce far beyond what is needed for everybody on the planet. It's all about the supply chain and how it's run. All technical issues have been solved a long time ago, including the pollution issues. Those too are caused by corrupt politics, by greedy people that don't give a shit.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..