Hacker News Reader

Comment by rewq4321 | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, the cricket protein thing is a fad. Anything that can be produced by an animal, can be produced by a (potentially genetically-modified) plant or yeast more efficiently. Animals are above plants trophic-level-wise, and their feed conversion efficiency can't be more than 100%.

That said, insects are way more efficient than mammals at converting plants into human-edible calories thanks in part to their lack of internal temperature control and growth rate.[0] If you had to choose an animal to use as a protein-constructor, crickets would be a great choice.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Insects

View on HN

So your saying that I have to decide that all of a sudden I can't wait to eat crickets because they are more efficient?

That just seems to me like a choice that very few humans are actually going to make.

> That just seems to me like a choice that very few humans are actually going to make.

It seems very HN to take the perspective of an aloof farmer-of-humans rather than that of an actual human.

>> So your saying that I have to decide that all of a sudden I can't wait to eat crickets because they are more efficient?

No no, not you. All the poor people. They're the ones who will be fed "efficiently". You and I and most people on HN will retain our privilege to eat what we want.

If your idea of "privilege" is fighting heroin addiction [and currently very much winning that battle, thankfully] and living on the streets of West Palm Beach because due to felony drug possession charges over 15 years ago I can't get hired anywhere, than yes, "you and I" are most definitely that.

I'm happy to hear that you're winning the battle and I hope you continue to do so.

My comment stands. You would be forced to eat crickets and I wouldn't (be forced to eat them). That's the whole idea with feeding people "efficiently". Piss-poor people who can't get a living wage are already fed the most unhealthy food because it's cheap and easy to mass-produce, whereas those who are well-off can eat whatever we want, whatever we think is healthy and nutritious, or just pleasant to eat. And all this talk of efficiency means is that more cheaply produced, low-quality food can keep being sold to those who need to watch their wallet more than they care to watch their waistline.

A heartfelt thanks for your kind words...

Yeah the more I think about it, it's probably just a cultural thing and not a "whole humanity" thing.

As it's been discussed here, in some cultures crickets are sold as a snack on streetcorners and people grow up eating them.

And I think the whole "piss-poor people" thing might just be eating unhealthy garbage because, just maybe, the cheap high-sugar high-carb stuff releases endorphins in most humans, and they are just trying to get a small reprieve in their desperate lives.

Roasted crickets are actually very tasty. I’d compare them to Cheetos. To each their own, sure, and I won’t tease you for refusing, but I can completely see then as something you wouldn’t be surprised to find in a corner deli, as complementary snacks in a bar, or while gaming at a friend’s. I prefer peanuts but many people are allergic. You want alternatives.

They're everywhere here in Thailand. You can buy a bag from a street vendor or find them in many supermarkets along with worms and other things we wouldn't consider eating in the West.

I haven't had the courage to try them myself yet.

I think you're going to have a lot easier time getting people to eat lentils than crickets, but sure, if it has to be cows or crickets then go for the crickets.

I think if you’d eat shrimp or prawns you’d give crickets ago. I’ve had them before as a novelty and they were fine.

I say novelty as they’re not generally available as food where I live.

I live in Thailand and they're everywhere here. So far I haven't been brave enough to try them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com