Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Grants $1 Million To Edible Insect Farmers
An anonymous reader writes "Former US President Bill Clinton, through the Clinton Global Initiative, has awarded $1 million to a group of Canadian MBA students who are looking to solve urban hunger by feeding people insects. The students will use this as seed money for their start-up, Aspire Food Group, which aims to farm, produce, and sell edible insects as a way of solving world hunger, particularly in slums. Aspire says it will even work toward replacing livestock farms with insect farms in some areas." Insects as food aren't necessarily incompatible with conventional livestock, either.
Just watch, if cockroach burgers ever get popular, prices will soar and we'll hear all about how hard they are to raise and how they're in short supply.
Exactly. You can't solve hunger with cheaper food, except perhaps in the case of getting more bang for your buck when making a charitable food donation.
In a capitalist system it just leads to higher profit margins or lower wages.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I don't even think it matters how cheap it is. It won't stop people from starving in third world countries. Even if the food is free, you still have to get it to the impoverished nation, which can cost quite a bit, especially with inland areas. Sure they could cultivate their own land, farm their own bugs, but they could do that with the crops and livestock we currently have. The reason they don't is because their who system is completely messed up. You could have a farm, but someone could come around and burn all your crops, and kill all your livestock because there is no rule of law. Lack of food isn't really a supply or cost issue to do with the food itself, but more a problem with the way the social and political systems are set up where people are starving.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No, the market says you'll eat bugs when demand for meat outstrips supply.
(Welcome to macroeconomics, you must be new here!)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Trying to change cultural taboos in order to use the most efficient protein source isn't a sign of sustainability. It's a sign of desperation. If that doesn't fix the problem, then where do you go? It'd be better to fix the problems that are making them think that way; rather than think that way.
Hey, googling around insects are the most efficient, with fish, chicken, pigs, and then beef finally being least efficient. How about encouraging Indonesians to take a baby step towards the most efficient source, and trade beef for pork. Do you see why that might be a bit of a problem?
Aside from that, the truly desperate never needed a study from some institute to become efficient. Rats and bugs get eaten by POWs and refugees all the time. The Bible even records that bird droppings became a coveted source of sustenance during a seige. It almost sounds like they're putting the cart before the horse. "You're going to be living in dire poverty because of what we're doing to you; here's how you can cope with it".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You're just begging for an oblig, aren't you? ;)