A paucity of food has been the motivation behind many of mankind's greatest innovations. The transition from hunter-gather clans to agrarian societies as a result of the agricultural revolution forever changed the way humans lived, worked, and interacted, and was a direct response to a lack of food. The need to consolidate resources and maximize production has resulted in the modern food processing system we see today. Despite this, there have long been concerns about humanities ability to feed itself, and these fears are indeed valid. In 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that while the human population would continue to increase exponentially, the food supply would surely flat line, relegating humanity to a level of subsistence known only to pre-agrarian societies (Sachs). Later, in 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich famously predicted that humanity would starve to death in a matter of decades, and went as far to say that England would cease to exist by 1983 (Ehrlich). While these predictions have yet to come to fruition, there is another food related concern that threatens our ability to thrive. Ironically, in our quest to feed an ever-growing population, we have impeded our ability to produce food at all. This predicament is the result of global warming. Modern farming is incredibly taxing on the environment, and is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the burning of fossil fuels (World Future Council). In this day and age, it is essential to focus on conservation, as inaction will only raise the stakes. That being said, environmental responsibility and feeding the world's 7 billion people seem to be almost irreconcilable tasks. However, there is a solution. Although understandably undesirable, promoting the broad consumption of insects would solve many of the issues caused by modern agriculture and farming, including but not limited to decreased carbon emissions and a reduced land usage per organism. Thus, as insect consumption has a relatively low environmental toll when compared to that wrought by traditional farming, and additionally considering the health benefits associated with this often overlooked source of sustenance, the sustainable solution to feeding the world's 7 billion people is to eat bugs. 

As unappetizing as eating bugs may seem (to the Western mind, at least), the environmental cost of modern agriculture and farming is a compelling reason to promptly change our eating habits, such is the extent of the damage the modern food processing system inflicts on our environment. While the blame for increased greenhouse emissions is often cast on transportation and industrial manufacturing, agriculture in the 21st century actually contributes 14 percent of all greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere. This number, though alarming in and of itself, does not take into account the ever increasing deforestation required to make room for this agriculture. Disregarding all other issues precipitated by deforestation, the reduced number of trees contributes another 4 percent to total greenhouse emissions (World Future Council). All told, modern agriculture is responsible for more than 6 billion tons of emitted greenhouse gases per year, a number that, according to the World Resources Institute, is expected to rise to 7 billion by 2030 (Russell). Interestingly enough, the majority of these pollutants do not come from food processing, but from the animals themselves. Cow burping, or more formally, cattle belching, contributes an immense amount of methane into the air. This, in conjunction with the nitrous oxide from pesticides used on animals that leach into the soil, comprises an astonishing 65 percent of all agricultural greenhouse emissions, or 3.9 billion tons per year. While vehicles contribute a larger quantity of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the negative effect of methane produced by cows alone is 23 times higher than that of car exhaust (Time for Change). When managed responsibly, farming is not necessarily bad. It is only factory farming, an integral part of the modern food processing system, that adversely affects the atmosphere. Unfortunately, considering the increasing number of people on the planet, factory farming seems to be the only solution if traditional agricultural methods are to be upheld. 

Livestock waste only becomes problematic when large quantities of animals are housed on small plots of land, a dilemma that could be easily remedied were bugs the main form of sustenance. Currently, livestock uses 26 percent of the planet's available terrestrial space, as each organism requires considerably more land than, say, a cricket would (Bland). Additionally, considering that there are an estimated 1.5 billion cows on the planet, such numbers would require incredible amounts of room even if each animal wasn't hundreds of pounds. Due to the relatively large amount of room required to house livestock and the limited availability of land (since we've already used so much of it), larger amounts of livestock are forced to occupy increasingly small areas, and this is when factory farming becomes problematic. While small scale farming establishes a sustainable manure-to-fertilizer-to crop relationship, industrial farming eliminates this possibility. For example, a factory farm with 35,000 hogs (sadly, not an unheard of quantity in modern farming) jammed into small living spaces will produce 200 million pounds of waste each year (Sustainable Table). While a smaller amount of waste could be used productively as fertilizer, manure of this sheer magnitude acts exclusively as a pollutant. Given the amount of waste produced, the number of forests destroyed, and the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted, humanity simply cannot continue to farm traditional livestock for broad consumption, lest irreparable damage be further dealt to our planet's land and atmosphere. 

While the detrimental affects of modern agriculture are enough to make us reconsider our eating habits, to many, the prospect of eating bugs is too farfetched to ever become a reality. Before we delve into the multiplicity of benefits associated with insect consumption, we must first comprehend and overcome our entrenched fear of bugs. In the West, bugs are understandably shunned as a source of food. From an early age, many humans are conditioned by culture and language to be repulsed by insects. Expressions like "getting the creepy crawlies," or "ants in your pants," or even "butterflies in your stomach," are all insect based idioms that evoke unpleasant and uncomfortable sensations. Bugs are associated with death, filth, and decay, none of which are apt to stir up a reasonable person's appetite. While insect repulsion may seem universal, this is far from the case (Loo 14). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, more than 2 billion people, or nearly a third of all humans, incorporate insects into their daily diet. The act of eating bugs or cooking with insects is officially known as entomophagy, and is closely tied with religious and cultural activities throughout the world. It is only in the West that such practices are considered disgusting or primitive. It has been reported that more than 900 species of insects are commonly consumed in Asia, South America, and Africa, providing a far greater variety of food than traditional livestock (Huis). Despite all of this, insects' stigmatization has prevented their introduction into Western cuisine. If we are able to get over our prejudices and at the very least consider eating insects, we can begin to look at just how important they could be in reducing our carbon footprint and land pollution, feeding the world's growing population (which is expected to be 9 billion by 2050), and freeing up earth's terrestrial space (Huis).

With our prejudices hopefully put outside for the time being, and with a healthy disgust for modern agriculture still lingering in our minds, we can now delve into the many advantages of entomophagy, starting first with insects' minimal dietary needs and the subsequent environmental benefits. Not surprisingly, bugs do not require a lot of food, and are not particular about what little food they do need. In fact, crickets, one of the most broadly consumed insects, require 12 times less food than cattle and half as much food as pigs while still producing the same amount of protein (Bobolz). Because insects are coldblooded, they burn considerably less energy than mammals, and therefore do not need nearly as much food to survive. In addition, the diet of insects is not as restricted as that of livestock. In fact, insects are able to thrive on nothing but waste (even human waste). Instead of producing an unmanageable amount of manure that acts as a potent pollutant, insects, in addition to being food, actively recycle, thus productively contributing to the environment themselves (Huis). Besides the obvious environmental (and monetary) benefits of insects' minimalist diets, there are broader, perhaps more far reaching consequences as well. Despite the fact that 26 percent of earth's land surface is reserved for livestock grazing, an additional 1/3 of our planets arable land is set aside to grow crops exclusively for livestock consumption in order to accommodate for their huge diets. Cows alone require around 27 pounds of food per day (Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources). The crops necessary to feed livestock are a huge drain on local ecosystems, and increased demand has resulted in mass deforestations. In fact, 70 percent of deforested land in Brazil, the majority of which is cut in the Amazon, is now used for livestock grazing. Much of the remaining 30 percent is utilized for crop feed cultivation (Bland). The subsequent damage caused by deforestation needs no further explaining. The environmental benefit of insects' limited and nonspecific diets are immense, and is just one of the many reasons a switch from traditional meat to bugs could help reverse much of the damage we have inflicted on our planet. 

In addition to their small diets, insects produce less harmful gases than livestock, and therefore, if adopted into Western cuisine, could drastically reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. On their own, cattle emit a substantial amount of carbon dioxide and methane. When this number is multiplied by more than a billion, the amount of gas released is second only to cars. When livestock other than cattle are taken into consideration, the pernicious effects of these toxic gases are further increased (Time for Change). But fear not, insects are once again here to save the day. Because of their small size and rapid growth rate, insects release much less carbon dioxide and almost no methane into the atmosphere. Periods of growth in organisms are marked by elevated gas emissions, and as these stages are relatively short in insects, the release of gases is minimized. Livestock, on the other hand, especially cows and pigs, have incredibly long periods of growth, and grow to more substantial sizes as well. Thus, insects produce less carbon dioxide per unit of weight gained than either cows or pigs (Parry). Like deforestation, the detrimental consequences of carbon dioxide and methane emissions need no introduction, and to incorporate insects into Western diets would decrease dependency on livestock, thus lessening the carbon footprint of modern agriculture. It is important to note that is not necessary to outright eliminate livestock from our diets, a fact the the medical journal The Lancet makes clear in its proposal for reducing greenhouse emissions:

We considered potential strategies for the agricultural sector to meet the target recommended by the UK Committee on Climate Change to reduce UK emissions from the concentrations recorded in 1990 by 80% by 2050, which would require a 50% reduction by 2030. With use of the UK as a case study, we identified that a combination of agricultural technological improvements and a 30% reduction in livestock production would be needed to meet this target (Friel 216).

By simply eating less meat, we can reduce our gas emissions by 50 percent in under fifteen years, an astonishing statistic that further proves that a change in our eating habits is necessary. Understandably, many people object to this prospect, as meat is both delicious and packed with essential nutrients, mainly protein. Fortunately, in addition to their low greenhouse gas emissions, bugs are incredibly nutritious. By reducing meat consumption and supplementing our decreased protein intake with insects, the negative environmental impact of factory farming will decline, and food (in the form of bugs, of course) will be available to more people, subsequently reducing world hunger and disease, among other things.

If their numerous environmental benefits are not convincing enough, insects are also nutrient rich, healthier than traditional meat, and, as they are much cheaper to maintain, are more accessible to populations who have previously suffered from hunger. In general, bugs are incredibly high in protein. Grasshoppers have the same amount of protein per kilogram as beef, but with far less fat, while mealworms are equitable in protein content to most types of fish. Caterpillars, while they have a slightly higher fat content, have the same amount of protein as a standard turkey leg. However, the fat in caterpillars and most other bugs is far healthier than that found in mammals (Boboltz). Insects are also rich in vital micronutrients such as zinc and iron (Anthes). In addition to their nutritional values, bugs are actually quite tasty, despite their lack of visual appeal. Ants often taste like lemongrass, bees have a nutty, almost smoky flavor, and grasshoppers work well with almost anything, and have the same culinary applications as tofu. More importantly however, entomophagy has the potential to reduce world hunger. A growing world population will continue to put pressure on an already (quite obviously) strained agricultural system. Simply put, due to billions of more people, there will come a time after which humanity will no longer be able to feed itself without inflicting catastrophic damage on the planet (as if we haven't already ... ). Already, there are more than 795 million people in the world who do not have enough food to lead healthy lives, and 45 percent of child deaths are the result of poor nutrition (World Food Programme). Insects may be the solution to feeding this ever growing number of hungry people. Bugs are low cost, reproduce quickly, and are often drought resistant, characteristics shared by no other food source. Furthermore, a reduction in consumption of traditional meat would free up considerable amounts of land currently set aside for livestock feed, thus enabling more crops to be grown for human consumption (Boboltz). These two factors, in conjunction with the high quantities of protein found in insects, have the potential to seriously reduce world hunger today and in the future.

Although the advantages of entomophagy are abundant, opponents to broad insect consumption worldwide share a grievance similar to that of vegetarians: too many organisms have to die. This complaint is not entirely invalid. Given the small size of insects, billions upon billions of more organisms will have to be killed in order to feed humans. One opponent of entomophagy states the following:

The number of insects required to produce a single meal is orders of magnitude higher than the number of chickens or especially cows required to produce that meal. Even if we give insects less moral weight per individual than bigger animals, when we sum over all the insects involved, the total suffering to produce a meal adds up to a big amount (Tomasik).

Admittedly, many insects would have to die to sustain billions of people. While this objection is reasonable, there is a logical fallacy here that invalidates the entire argument. The objection to killing bugs is directly linked to an abhorrence of suffering, a sentiment most people can get behind, but one most individuals put aside when eating traditional meat nonetheless. Opponents of entomophagy oppose suffering and pain, and therefore are averse to that suffering on a grander scale, as would be the case were we all to eat bugs. However, according to Dr. Jane A. Smith, while invertebrates respond to unfavorable stimuli, what they are experiencing is not pain, but rather, is a biological reaction entirely unrelated to sensation. This is because the majority of invertebrates do not have a central nervous system. Simply put, bugs do not suffer the way mammals do (Smith). In fact, a switch to entomophagy would reduce the vast suffering experienced by livestock in factory farms every day.

It is often hard to make decisions that do not affect the present. The present is immediate and tangible, while the future is distant and ethereal. Unfortunately, decisions that affect the future are usually the most important ones. Now is the time to change the way we eat, as soon the damage will be irreparable. (This is going to be much better in the final one but I have the word count and good god am I tired)

