|
|
|
|
|
|
by dcx
1362 days ago
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
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.