That being said I'm not sure who these insect burgers are for, or what problem they solve. If you acknowledge that diet is big part of climate change solutions, then why not go directly to plant-based burgers? It's not like crickets have anything in common with red meat in any way.

My cynical take is that it's just a way to "do the right thing" without agreeing with the vegans. Gotta eat dead animals.

[–] Manticore@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think that's a bad faith interpretation to imply that one eats animals exclusively because it being 'animals' is the point. Most people don't think about it, their priority is making their daily life as simple as possible. They just eat whatever tastes good and is easy to get. And the people pushing for eating insects are thinking about it; they just have different priorities; they're trying to make environmentally-sustainable food easier to get.

Insects are still a far better choice for protein. They don't take remotely the amount of land or water that soy crops do, and they can be grown in areas of the world that don't have as much freshwater. They can be fed off scraps and organic material that are waste to us. They also have a high return yield; they're not being lost to droughts/weather/pests at the rate crops (especially organic) are. I'd posit that an insect-inclusive diet is probably more environmentally-friendly than the modern vegan diet is.

Humans are evolved omnivores. It's both possible and noble to have an organic and herbivorous diet that meets your basic needs, but it's difficult, often inaccessible, expensive; and it takes up huge amounts of land to grow the kind of crops needed (especially if much of them are lost to pests). Soy demands a lot of water, and avocados have been priced out of reach of the impoverished Central Americans they used to cheaply feed. Whether plant or animal, we are only alive by consuming life. There is no diet without some harm to somebody somewhere. Most vegan diets are too expensive (or unavailable), and are part of the deforestation for soy plantations overseas.

Ultimately now that principles have become a part of how we consume (and not just necessity, availability, effort etc), any philosophy requires compromise. If one's primary concern is freshwater, the carbon cycle, deforestation for cropland, nutrition density, local food-chain, animal suffrage, animal consent, organic, local-grown, seasonal, etc... It's not possible to follow them all, and it's not reasonable to expect everybody choose a single specific one.

I have a preference towards attainable and environmentally-sustainable eating, which means that eating crickets (and mushrooms, yum) is less harmful ecologically than eating soy (deforestation, water), and far less harmful than cattle (magnitudes worse than any other livestock). I also avoid palm oil products (deforestation). I don't disagree with any vegetarians or vegans who chose other principles; it's excellent that humans are becoming increasingly mindful of what we choose to eat. We just have different priorities.

[–] averyminya@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Insects are also cheaper than plants.

Plant-based food alternatives, at least in the U.S. are very expensive to the counterparts.

Poor people make up a majority of America. If we want change, we need feasible alternatives, not greenwashed ones that price out at the middle class. Impoverished people aren't capable of making the same extent of changes sheerly because their survival is more important than not using cow milk.

I'm totally with you, we need to make efforts at culturally appropriate changes and to make efforts towards diversifying all of them. More options is only a good thing and I'll never understand this idea that it has to be specifically one thing (usually some kind of plant based). If it can be made cheap enough, great, but don't we also want lab grown, insect based, and locally farmed meat and produce? Let's try and make strides towards making all of these as prevalent as factory farming, no?