Here comes the narrative. Eating bugs can be good for you

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: TzarChasm

Humans eat food that is easy to grow.
In the west we eat seafood and snails and mouldy cheese etc, so don't use the ewww bugs excuse.
Most people who have bugs in their diet did it because at some point they were starving not because they taste nice.
If bugs were so brilliant and nutricious and harmless to munch they'd be in our diet already.
Our ancestors must have tried them and decided wholeheartedly against them. They rather ate snails and mouldy cheeses, which we are still eating. That should tell you everything you need to know.

Bugs have all kinds of bad things in there intestines and the chitin is really bad for us. Hence we peel prawns.
You wanna peel crickets?
We are not birds, kept by our masters with frigging bugs.
We are individuals, at least a lot of us are and then there are hive people who love communist ideas and being some nutty dictators pets.

Refer to my previous remarks about "ewww bugs are gross". Feelz are not a factor in the debate around viable protein substitutes, otherwise every domestic animal in your town would be on a farm being cultivated for harvest. And that's the moral debate which is a misrepresentation of the present debate, around the merits of voluntarily converting to a bug protein diet and how feasible it is for those who volunteer to do so. No one is taking away your beef.

My biggest objection to this concept is the inevitable double standards. Any restrictions in the food industry reducing the production of protein or converting the market to a more sustainable menu should impact all levels of society to the same degree otherwise what we're looking at is textbook hypocrisy, which again is a moral debate.

this is what the schwabies want us to revert back to.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

you know ... they have already planned what you will eat , in 5 y time ;
and it's documented so look it up
the type of food , the quantity , and that for each [type] country

but this specific aspect i never saw inthere
and i refuse to believe that proteins [and whatever] couldnt be obtained from something else

so the 2nd option - or perhaps a big part of it :
it is just a form of utter humiliation of 'ze peasants' .

a reply to: TzarChasm

I know a nice place in the body where the bug pushers can stuff their bugs for good,

Can I say bend over please?

so the 2nd option - or perhaps a big part of it :
it is just a form of utter humiliation of 'ze peasants' .

a reply to: lonerpt
Interesting. Especially since one of the theories is to take out the middle class. If no one can get a steak, and we are all eating bugs, then we're all closer to the same social class...
It fits the theory

a reply to: TzarChasm

More ... why the sudden push to get people to pick up a thing as a staple when it is outside their cultural norm and doesn't really do anything to address the so-called problem? Let's get serious, eating bugs to save the planet is stupid. Even if we allow that climate change is a serious and threatening issue, eating bugs will not make any measurable impact on the problem. So why push eating bugs as a new societal/cultural norm to save the planet? That's a lie and you're smart enough to know it.

Somebody once said “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."

The source is in dispute, but the message is loud and clear.

no .. there's some heinous reason why they want to stop people eating [red] meat.
Whatever it is [and no it aint 'CeeeHooTwoo']

a reply to: lonerpt
When I read this the [red] in the sentence stood out. I was having another thought and it came down to the [red] meat.
Most of us know that when you buy a steak, take it home and cook it to medium rare (the best btw) and then cut into the meat it's "bleeds" a little red juice. Most know that this, in fact, is not "blood" but a [red] die they inject in the meat as part of the processing. It's what gives the meat that nice [red] color.
My thought: what it it's the [red] dye... Or possibly part of the problem, along with other processing side affects.

a reply to: AOx6179

Ugh.. i feed mealworms to various critters that i look after.. they are nasty and smell horrible.


Locusts on the other hand.. Why not, they kinda smell like whey or some straw.. I bet they taste pretty good fried up in a pan..

But it does not matter, if the elite want me to eat it, i wont.

originally posted by: AOx6179

no .. there's some heinous reason why they want to stop people eating [red] meat.
Whatever it is [and no it aint 'CeeeHooTwoo']

a reply to: lonerpt
When I read this the [red] in the sentence stood out. I was having another thought and it came down to the [red] meat.
Most of us know that when you buy a steak, take it home and cook it to medium rare (the best btw) and then cut into the meat it's "bleeds" a little red juice. Most know that this, in fact, is not "blood" but a [red] die they inject in the meat as part of the processing. It's what gives the meat that nice [red] color.
My thought: what it it's the [red] dye... Or possibly part of the problem, along with other processing side affects.

well , you know , there's a line in the Scroll "the soul is in the blood"
in some way it has contact with the soul
and since They want the human soul closed-off [from any other one or type]...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AOx6179

Allegedly, roughly 30% of society already eats bugs as a frequent staple in their diet. It's not even "exotic" it's just traditionally and economically relevant to their lifestyle.

www.fao.org...

richmondfamilymagazine.com...

I would argue that "ewww bugs are gross" is more narrative than "bugs might be a viable substitute" because one assessment is based in science (see above) and the other, not so much.

Does anyone use "science" to decide what they want to eat? Nope. "Oh forget all the delicious foods that are common throughout history --science dictates everything we can do now and we have to switch to those insects over there".

Bugs are not a viable substitute because whacko cray cray environmentalists say it must be so, to appease them.

Appeasing nut cases never ends well. They never acquiesce when "appeased". You know what they do? They think "wow look at how easy we beat these peasant useless eaters down and made them eat bugs". "Lets try and get them to consume processed dung next". They'll just figure out how dung beetles survive on it and do some genetic reverse engineering. "MMM road apples for desert."

The people pushing these things like eating bugs are not of good moral character, so no thanks.

Put your chicken bone scraps in a bucket, hang it over your chicken coop.
Maggots will begin crawling out of it in a few days- feed them your meat scraps!

The maggots will fall down into the coop, and your chickens will eat the bugs.
Because bugs are chicken food, and chickens are people food, and people food scraps are bug food... It's the circle of life.

a reply to: lonerpt

i'm glad they decided on bugs and not this,

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Who knows what else they'll get around to once they have us bending the knee to bugs?

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
a reply to: lonerpt

i'm glad they decided on bugs and not this,

don't worry - all of Their blessings come in stages

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AOx6179



I would argue that "ewww bugs are gross" is more narrative than "bugs might be a viable substitute" because one assessment is based in science (see above) and the other, not so much.

The problem I see here is that we are being sold "bugs might be a viable substitute" when really it should be "bugs might be a viable supplement" to meat. To me, this focus on bugs as substitute is forcing an agenda.

Even if cattle are problematic in terms of resource use, a better focus would be in promoting other more sustainable meats like rabbit and guinea pig (a south american staple), both can be raised in stacked cages and reproduce well.

If people are being steered away from conventional meats, these animals as well as pigeons, ducks, quail to name just a few are great alternatives, can be raised at home in many cases, and much better than bugs.

a reply to: AOx6179

And insects for you will always mean "you people"

However, the glorified extreme narcissist WEF crowd would never touch the stuff, with them considering themselves the new nobility and this all being soooo beneath them

Forcing us to eat insects is the ultimate putdown, gaslighting to force us to demean and dehumanize ourselves and place us in a position so beneath their "greatness"

The whole point of us eating insects is to feed their narcissism

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: TzarChasm

I know a nice place in the body where the bug pushers can stuff their bugs for good,

Can I say bend over please?

May I offer you a gourmet dish of penis fish to repay the favor?

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AOx6179



I would argue that "ewww bugs are gross" is more narrative than "bugs might be a viable substitute" because one assessment is based in science (see above) and the other, not so much.

The problem I see here is that we are being sold "bugs might be a viable substitute" when really it should be "bugs might be a viable supplement" to meat. To me, this focus on bugs as substitute is forcing an agenda.

Even if cattle are problematic in terms of resource use, a better focus would be in promoting other more sustainable meats like rabbit and guinea pig (a south american staple), both can be raised in stacked cages and reproduce well.

If people are being steered away from conventional meats, these animals as well as pigeons, ducks, quail to name just a few are great alternatives, can be raised at home in many cases, and much better than bugs.

That's a fair argument I can sympathize with, far removed from the childish knee jerk hostility one often encounters around this topic. Although "agenda" seems a strong word for a branch of nutritional science that wants to answer questions without implementing legislation, a whole separate department of food and drug industry.