[dcx]

I found the National Geographic piece interesting. But you've made a lot of unnecessarily condescending and incorrect assumptions about me: I was not raised in the West. I enjoy many of the foods on your list, and am also very familiar with induced disgust originating in religious taboo.

Yes, some cultures do farm and raise insects. The point I'm making is that it's unusual that pretty much every culture worldwide that is prominent economically today has mostly moved away from entomophagy, considering its apparent sheer efficiency. (Whereas we pretty much universally all still farm honey)

Also, the assumption that eating insects is merely a cultural taboo may not hold water: a quick Google finds scholarly research around insect and arthropod disgust being a worldwide phenomenon, which lines up with my initial speculation. I also see academic hypotheses that this was indeed evolved due to the "parasite avoidance theory of disgust". Just like culture can be used to create disgust taboos, it can also be used to override them.

[zasdffaa]

> a quick Google finds

please post the search terms you used, or better, the links you found. If you claim stuff, back it up please.

There's a large tradition of eating marine arthropods (lobster, crab), and plenty of eating insects in africa (https://html.duckduckgo.com/html?q=insect%20eaten%20africa) and wider:

"Many cultures embrace the eating of insects. Edible insects have long been used by ethnic groups in Asia, Africa, Mexico and South America as cheap and sustainable sources of protein. Up to 2,086 species are eaten by 3,071 ethnic groups in 130 countries." - and there's plenty more of that

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy_in_humans

[dcx]

Sorry, but this is a discussion board, and I have no obligation to provide citations for every last sentence I write. Particularly given the low confidence I tagged these items with. Nor do you have any right to demand this standard of others. My comment contains more than enough keywords to retrace my Googling, there are lots of relevant papers, and I am not an expert. Please do your own supplementary research.

As to your points - first, I think it's more than clear from context what I meant by "arthropod"; I could have used the term "chelicerate" instead but this is far less useful. And second, yes, I know such cultures exist. My point was about "prominent economically" and "mostly" moved away. If you sort countries by GDP per capita, how far down is the first country whose dominant eating habits include a lot of insect protein? And don't you find this result surprising considering its known energy efficiency?

[zasdffaa]

> to back up every last claim

Weasel words. You didn't back up any of your claims.

> Nor do you have any right to demand this standard of others

I see it as just good manners.

> My comment contains more than enough keywords to retrace

No they don't (though mine do), and as you just did the work & found the sources, why on earth did you not post them, having them right to hand?

> My point was about "prominent economically"

Hmm, you did say that. It's an interesting point.

> If you sort countries by GDP per capita, how far down is the first country whose dominant

It's not about 'dominant', it's about doing it at all ("...arthropod disgust being a worldwide phenomenon, which lines up with my initial speculation") - it doesn't. If a country does it as a (say) 5% protein/energy intake was insects it would disprove your taboo/disgust theory. Or 1%.

> And don't you find this result surprising considering its known energy efficiency?

If true, and you have not quantified efficiency (although I believe you are right), yes, it's a good question.

[graderjs]

Thank you! This is awesome!! :P :) xx ;p

[graderjs]

Man you're totally being ignorant. It doesn't matter that you got a bit of science behind it, you can find science to do anything--especially to back up some "norm" specific the culture the science comes from. Science is a discourse, not a settled matter.

Ugh, I didn't assume anything about you. I took it from what you said. Stop being such a cultural supremacist. I was right about you: you are ignorantly speaking from your own limited experience. That's not condescending it's the truth. Everyone has a limited experience, what you're doing wrong is saying you're way is better than others, "more normal", "more advanced": "unusual that pretty much every culture worldwide that is prominent economically today has mostly moved away from entomophagy", it's just white-washing for neo-colonialist cultural supremacy: savages eating "lower" foods, while the cultivated civilized elites eat the "better" stuff. It's bs, man.

I never said you were raised in the West. I mean this kind of "relativity-blind cultural supremacism", I'd wager is big foundation of racism.

"pretty much every" "prominent economically today" "mostly moved away from"--it's a pretty weakly worded claim (weaselly worded to take the stance of another commenter, which to me suggests you're merely arguing for troll sake, by loosening up your position to give you the most strategic room to manoeuvre. If that, I'd just say pick a topic that makes you look less dumb and insensitive).

It's also completely incorrect: Brazil, India, China -- they like their insects.

Economic prominence: admittedly, I think this view is controversial, but according to CIA and IMF China is now larger than US economically[0]. And using more traditional metrics, the BRICS block combined GDP is larger than the US, the "most of" the BRICS block (of em, "economically prominent" countries to put it, um, delicarely) eat insects.

You are the backward ignorant bogan looking into your neighbourhood and proclaiming it the whole world, while speaking of things ignorantly and arrogantly outside your ken. The Court Philosophers who would hang Galileo for challenging their Precious belief that Earth was the Center of the Universe.

Come on, man. That's not scientific. That's backward, and ugly. I'm sorry, but it's true. :P ;) xx ;p

[0]: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/china-now-worlds-la...

[dcx]

1. I did not use the word "normal" or "advanced" once in any comment, nor did I ever imply it. You are, in fact, continuing to make assumptions about me.

2. "Pretty much every culture worldwide that is prominent economically today has mostly moved away from entomophagy" is carefully stated so as to be a measurable claim. Sort by GDP per capita and consider the percentage of insect protein in diets. The cultures at the top of the list are not merely Western or colonial remnants.

3. My point is about energy efficiency, which is value neutral. It seems obvious that human cultures have an incentive to use resources efficiently, or else be outcompeted by cultures which do (ala historical materialism). Given that (a) most every culture has passed through entomophagic periods, (b) most cultures have known how to farm insects for millenia, and (c) recent studies show this practice is incredibly energy efficient, this should imply that every economically prominent culture today should already be getting the majority of its protein from insects. We should predict millenia of insect-based cuisine as the global mainstream default, and entire supermarket aisles of produce. The fact that we do not see this is surprising, and therefore invokes caution via Chesterton's Fence.

4. It is known that some percentage of people enjoy foods which trigger the evolutionary disgust response, such as extremely bitter foods, or snakes. Perhaps this is because said response is not uniform across the population, or perhaps it can be overcome via other means. But the fact that some people do so does not preclude that the response exists for some good reason.

5. What you are calling "weasel words" are what I call being careful with the level of confidence with which one makes assertions in conversation. I am not an expert, and will not make assertions with the certainty this would permit. You too are certainly not an expert.

6. I am not interested in continuing this conversation further; I'm writing this to clarify my thinking on #3 and #4, and for the benefit of future readers. If you selectively choose to disbelieve science when it doesn't support your beliefs, without examining the underlying facts, this implies that your beliefs are not rooted in fact. I also find your insults and personal attacks distasteful.