While eating insects may sound disgusting to most people, it may be a reality we have to embrace if humanity continues to inhibit its ability to produce food. This fear, while far from new, is now more serious than ever before. 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 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. Climate change, a subject I am passionate about as a result of years spent hiking and climbing, has been the unintentional result of the modern food processing system. Farming in the 21st century is incredibly taxing on the environment, and is arguably responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the burning of fossil fuels (World Future Council). That being said, environmental responsibility and feeding the world's 7 billion people seem to be irreconcilable tasks. In order to feed the human population in an environmentally conscious way, we must all start eating bugs. As ridiculous as this may seem (to people in the West at least), there is compelling evidence to suggest that humans should at least consider eating insects on a more regular basis. The following paper analyzes three sources' perspective on the food crisis, and considers the possible benefits of alternative food sources. All told, the evidence supporting insect consumption, or entomophagy, as it is formally known, is hard to ignore. 

Modern agriculture requires incredibly large swaths of land, as a result, food production has not been kind to the environment. According to the World Future Council, 14 per cent of all greenhouse gases are the direct result of agricultural activities. Furthermore, 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. These statistics were compiled by The World Future Council, 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 has an incredibly high environmental cost, but unfortunately, is given very little attention. As a result, the World Future Council has a lot to lose if its proposals are not taken seriously. If people do not appreciate the direness of the situation, legislation will never get passed. Additionally, 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, sustainability is their first priority.

In order to feed what will soon be the planet's 10 billion people, BBC argues that it is imperative to find an alternative source of protein. Because of its environmental toll, BBC contends that 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. BBC itself does not have much at stake in suggesting such a seemingly outrageous idea, however, it is known as a progressive news source, and is therefore more likely to report on ideas that may seem eccentric at first, but provide real solutions to real problems nonetheless. As the worlds ability to feed itself is a significant dilemma, 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. Consequently, BBC is far more likely to condone a solution to reduce green house emissions than its conservative counterpart. As an internationally renowned news outlet, BBC is quite credible. 

Although they may seem unappetizing and innutritious, 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. According to this source, harvesting bugs would take less energy than traditional farming and could also help curb obesity. Furthermore, unlike livestock, there are no known diseases associated with eating bugs. The Huffington Post does not have anything to lose by writing about the health benefits of eating insects, and while it may share some of the same liberal values as 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. As an exclusively 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 out of the box, and eating bugs definitely falls into this category. Despite its relative novelty (compared to other news outlets), The Huffington Post is quite reputable.

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, chicken, or sheep, and are therefore more willing to treat them poorly. However, this opinion is not held by all. 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. However, given the smaller brain size of insects and general lack of a nervous system, I believe that insects are an excellent alternative to traditional meat. Considering the terrible conditions that livestock in factory farms endure on a daily basis, and compounding this with the environmental and nutritional benefits of insects, entomophagy appears to be the most logical, sustainable, and humane solution to feeding our planet's ever-growing population. 

