4 ms·

What makes you mention that it's sustainable?

phreeza 11y ago
I don't know, just seems to be the general vibe from many of the recent 'eating insects' stories: raising insects is more sustainable than regular meet because it consumes less meat and land, and emits less greenhouse gasses.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Not sure if you could produce enough insects for the whole wide world or even a country. For animal products, its been demonstrated at large scale. For insects, it has never been done so I'd like to see how it scales, and what kind of problems come from scaling up. Until then, it's just a nice fantasy.
  - blacksmith_tb 11y ago
    Well, ants and termites together are estimated to have about as much biomass as all cattle, sheep, and goats combined... [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#Global_biomass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#Global_b...
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Probably because the main argument behind starting to eat insects is that meat production in the West is unsustainable and devastating ecologically; the main reason we even get to enjoy meat is, from what I've heard, heavy subsidizing of meat production. I've read people saying meat is 10x cheaper than it should be, based just on production costs alone.
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  This isn't unique to meat and leaving out that information is misleading. Food in the US is heavily subsidized and overseen by the government for obvious reasons. Just like water is too important to leave to the free market, food is heavily regulated to ensure the health of the nation.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    The point isn't about subsidies per se, the point is that vegetables are generally sustainable, while meat at this scale and with this demand is not. Subsidies only hide this fact from the consumer.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
      By that logic the government is hiding the fact that vegetables aren't economically sustainable either. You're just changing your definition of sustainable to fit your argument (from ecologically to economically and then back to ecologically when the economic part was shown to be false). Pick a definition and stick to it.
  - riffraff 11y ago
    > Food in the US is heavily subsidized and overseen by the government for obvious reasons To be fair, you might be fine with some regulations but very little subsidies. E.g. corn in the US is heavily subsidized, but rarely used for human consumption; or historically, Iceland used to grow their own bananas until 1960 as fruit import was heavily taxed.
    - such_a_casual 11y ago
      Well regulation and subsidizing of agriculture in the United States is a direct reaction to the Great Depression. The country was fine without it for over 100 years. It's there in case shit really hits the fan, not because people can't figure it out on their own most of the time.
  - nyan4 11y ago
    > food is heavily regulated to ensure the health of the nation Oh the irony.

I don't know, just seems to be the general vibe from many of the recent 'eating insects' stories: raising insects is more sustainable than regular meet because it consumes less meat and land, and emits less greenhouse gasses.

ekianjo 11y ago
Not sure if you could produce enough insects for the whole wide world or even a country. For animal products, its been demonstrated at large scale. For insects, it has never been done so I'd like to see how it scales, and what kind of problems come from scaling up. Until then, it's just a nice fantasy.
- blacksmith_tb 11y ago
  Well, ants and termites together are estimated to have about as much biomass as all cattle, sheep, and goats combined... [1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#Global_biomass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29#Global_b...

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Probably because the main argument behind starting to eat insects is that meat production in the West is unsustainable and devastating ecologically; the main reason we even get to enjoy meat is, from what I've heard, heavy subsidizing of meat production. I've read people saying meat is 10x cheaper than it should be, based just on production costs alone.

such_a_casual 11y ago
This isn't unique to meat and leaving out that information is misleading. Food in the US is heavily subsidized and overseen by the government for obvious reasons. Just like water is too important to leave to the free market, food is heavily regulated to ensure the health of the nation.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The point isn't about subsidies per se, the point is that vegetables are generally sustainable, while meat at this scale and with this demand is not. Subsidies only hide this fact from the consumer.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    By that logic the government is hiding the fact that vegetables aren't economically sustainable either. You're just changing your definition of sustainable to fit your argument (from ecologically to economically and then back to ecologically when the economic part was shown to be false). Pick a definition and stick to it.
- riffraff 11y ago
  > Food in the US is heavily subsidized and overseen by the government for obvious reasons To be fair, you might be fine with some regulations but very little subsidies. E.g. corn in the US is heavily subsidized, but rarely used for human consumption; or historically, Iceland used to grow their own bananas until 1960 as fruit import was heavily taxed.
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    Well regulation and subsidizing of agriculture in the United States is a direct reaction to the Great Depression. The country was fine without it for over 100 years. It's there in case shit really hits the fan, not because people can't figure it out on their own most of the time.
- nyan4 11y ago
  > food is heavily regulated to ensure the health of the nation Oh the irony.