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. There have long been concerns about humanities ability to feed itself, and these concerns 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 never played out, and humanity seems to be getting along just fine for the time being (in terms of food, at least), there is another food related concern that threatens our ability to thrive. Ironically, in our quest to feed an ever-growing population, we have threatened 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 arguably responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the burning of fossil fuels (World Future Council). In this day and age, it is essential that we focus on conservation, but environmental responsibility and feeding the world's 7 billion people seem to be irreconcilable tasks. However, there is one solution. In order to feed the human population in an environmentally conscious way, we must all start eating bugs.

According to the World Future Council, 14 per cent of all greenhouse gases are the direct result of agricultural activities. In addition to this, it is estimated that as a result of irresponsible grazing and farming techniques, 475 billion tons of excess carbon has been produced in the last 150 years. Because modern agriculture requires such large swaths of land and animals produce such vast quantities of carbon, food production has not been kind to the environment.

The World Future Council is a delegation of politicians, scientists, businesses, and community organizers whose main objective is to create environmental reform today that will ensure global stability and sustainability in the future. Farming in the 21st century takes a huge toll on the environment, but is given very little attention. As a result, the WFC has a lot at stake, because if people don't appreciate the seriousness of the situation, legislation will never get passed.

Members of the World Future Council are renowned in their fields; thus it can be assumed that the organization is credible. Naturally, the WFC is biased towards environmental reform, as that is their primary objective. While the organization is involved with other types of legislation, environmental sustainability is their primary focus.

In order to feed what will soon be the planet's 10 billion people, BBC contends that it is imperative to find an alternative source of protein. Because of its environmental toll, simply vamping up the production of beef and chicken is not a feasible solution. Instead, eating bugs is likely the answer to this complex question.

While BBC itself does not have much at stake in regard to farming, it is known as a progressive news source, and is therefore willing to report on ideas that may seem eccentric at first, but provide real solutions to real problems. As the worlds ability to feed itself is a significant problem, BBC is invested in a solution.

Traditionally, BBC is a more leftward leaning news source, and as a result is more focused on environmental preservation and green technology than a right wing source. As a result, BBC is probably more prone to condoning a solution to reduce green house emissions than a conservative counterpart. BBC is an internationally renowned news outlet, and is therefore quite credible. 

Although it may seem unappetizing, the Huffington Post posits that bugs actually have the same amount of protein as beef, except with more important vitamins and minerals and less fat. Eating bugs would take less energy than traditional farming and could also help curb obesity. Additionally, unlike livestock, there are no known diseases associated with eating bugs.

The Huffington Post does not have anything at stake in writing about the health benefits of eating bugs. While it may share some of the same values of BBC, it is not necessarily invested in promoting a certain agenda. The only thing the Huffington Post has to lose is its readership, and this article in no way jeopardizes that.

An online publication, the Huffington Post attracts a mostly liberal audience, and therefore panders primarily to that side of the spectrum. Like BBC, it is more willing to embrace ideas that are more out of the box, and eating bugs definitely falls into this category. The Huffington Post is a similarly reputable source.

The concept of eating bugs is highly contested. There are those (the majority of individuals in the West) who consider eating bugs as disgusting and primitive. Then, there is the problem of humane treatment. Many people regard bugs as being lower life forms than cattle, chickens, or sheep, and are therefore more willing to treat them poorly. However, this is not the case for everyone. Opponents to eating bugs argue that increasing insect consumption would require humans to kill hundreds of millions more organisms to compensate for their small size. Instead, these people argue that humans should focus on plant based alternatives to meat. For a multitude of reasons, the problem of food production and sustainability is highly contested, and eating bugs is only one of many potential solutions.

