Peak Oil News and Message Boards

"Black Soldier Fly farms can process 1 ton of organic waste a day in just over 4 by 4 metres!"

Dude, with headlines like this, why wouldn't we be eating insects? Just don't ask me to celebrate the insect-i-ness of the insect, but mush it up and put it in the 'New and improved chicken nugget', because no one knows what the hell is in those things anyway! Don't insects get something like 10 TIMES the protein out of the same amount of vegetation as a cow? Also, this doesn't look too bad?

“It’s quite simple. You have to create an aesthetic product that looks good and doesn’t show any insects,” Özel said, adding that people were attracted by the smell of the burgers. But not everyone is sure about them.

Sold in supermarkets in Germany.

Thank you moderators for moving this to the correct thread — it was a bit of a leap from the dieoff thread! Just the way my brain operates I guess.

eclipse wrote:why wouldn't we be eating insects?

Gosh, isn't it obvious??? This kind of thing is just slapping band-aids on overpopulation, treating the symptoms and not the root cause. It's the food equivalent of fracking or coal-to-liquid, scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel. It's a way for us to keep avoiding the f*cking elephant in the room--POPULATION!

But no, we're supposed to just blissfully keep adapting, keep adapting, keep adapting, until we find ourselves living in little pod apartments and subsisting on soylent green.



BTW, it's not like there's an infinite supply of insects either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_i ... opulations

You can't just sleepwalk into the future shifting our diet to more and more exotic/artificial/unpalatable ways while you avoid wrestling with the question of overpopulation.

Does overpopulation doom us? I used to see Population as the main problem, but it's really not. It's only one of the 3 multipliers in IPAT. Our environmental IMPACT is multiplied by our POPULATION, our AFFLUENCE (consumption), and our TECHNOLOGY. We can turn our technology into a divider of the harm of the other two multipliers so that as the human population increases towards 10 billion, we can radically decrease their impact per person and probably, eventually, hopefully reduce it down to less than that of the 2 billion people back in the 1920s! Clean energy, increasing wealth, and decreasing environmental impact will lead to the education and empowerment of little girls in the developing world. The UN confirms that on average every 3 years education that a little girl receives, she has one less child. This means one can campaign for reducing population growth and stabilising the population at around 10 billion by 2050 without ever mentioning the word "Population!" Who would complain about sponsoring the educating and empowering of little girls? Also important is access to a 'safety net' in old age. This can even be pretty low, as demonstrated by the reduced population growth in the Indian state of Kerala, which absolutely stunned Bill McKibben! Links here. https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/reduce/