>

Heres an easy rundown of why you cant catch people like me offering insects no matter how good they taste:

Entomophobia
Arachnophobia
/u/llhoptown (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I agree with the "can" part of your argument. The "will" part is a whole other story. 
If something tastes good and is safe to eat, people can most definitely get used to eating it. But good taste alone is not enough for society to get used to eating something. You could argue that almost anything edible can be made to taste good with enough salt, fat, and or sugar. The hurdle for bugs is that there is the cultural factor and psychological disgust factor that most people have on eating bugs.
If there was some immense catastrophe that made bugs our only food option, bugs would quickly become part of every culture's food. 
There just isn't enough of a widespread reason for people to eat bugs as opposed to what they're used to eating. Since there's no reason for it, people wont eat it, and thus won't get used to eating them. >

OP is a commie >

Bugs are not new, people have been eating them throughout history. 
Thing is, as an area becomes wealthy, they stop eating them. Nobody's swapping back from a western diet to insects.
Lobster isn't the same. Lobster may have raised its status, but it was always eaten, and scarcity lent it some status/price increases. Bugs are not generally going to be a scarce supply in the way that seafood can be, and thus cannot ever become a Veblen good in that fashion. >


Nobody's swapping back from a western diet to insects

I had a professor from Africa. He would light up every time he told us about growing up and eating locusts. >

I have a coworker who talks fondly of the time his day hit him because “He knew I’d gotta away with something, just didn’t know what”. 
Just because someone has a found memory of something doesn’t mean it’s healthy. >

When you don't have enough to eat, that which contains calories is likely to be healthy. I assure you that Americans are pretty much the last people to listen to regarding nutrition, considering our history. >

Yes I'd agree...the local organic store by me has fried crickets and they're low cal/high protein and I love them. A bit too pricey, but still enjoyable every now and then. If Rogan had some dude on that said bugs are great for gains or some bs about Test levels, people would line up to eat bugs. 
I don't think people should be forced to eat anything, but there's no way that the American diet is not partly due to influence and control by meat/diary industry. I love eating meat and different types of animals. It's weird online thing to be like they're going to force you to eat bugs. Like yeah I'd take bugs over whatever weird process foods exist in most stores. >

The Dairy Council and the Meat lobby are amateurs compared to Big Sugar. Our entire medical system is still using the food pyramid dreamed up by cereal salesmen in the 1890's. >

Taste alone won't do it.  You'll need to make sure they also have a pleasing texture.  Not too dry and crispy with no "meat".  Not too slimy or gelatinous.  Tasting bad, of course, is a non-starter.  But tasting good is just one of several aspects that needs to be accomplished to result in frequent and happy consumption. >

I did meant texture along with taste, but sure !delta >

It’s refreshing to see a delta instead of arguing semantics and “that’s not what I meant” like we see too often here. >

I don’t think it would have been semantics assuming his point was that if the sensory characteristics of bugs can be improved, humans will like eating them, like the idea of eating a bug doesn’t have to be gross. >

I know a lot of people who won't eat certain things I consider delicious, like for example goose or Wild boar. It's not about appeareance (because they at least partially look like animals we eat) but simply the thought of eating those animals specifically. This is a irrational mindset, yes, but it does exist. It basically goes that certain things aren't supposed to be eaten, no matter how delicious they are. Bugs are usually considered in that category. So it's not (only) about taste or even texture, but truly psychology.
Now you did mentioned crustaceans, like lobster, however those didn't had the aforementioned issue, at least not as much. And in the case of lobster specifically, which might have jumpstarted the whole campaign, there's a funny story about it.
Lobsters were abundant in america, so abundant that it was given to poorer families and considered  Meal for the poor, or something along the lines. Until lobsters became close to eradicated in north america, where they were seen a luxurious food then due to their new rarity. At that point the poor wanted to eat it because they started to like it, and the rich wanted to eat it because it was expensive. This even almost started a war, the 'Lobster War'. I don't really see this being an exemplary case for bugs, and even then, such a situation happening again in our modern world is doubtful. >


It basically goes that certain things aren't supposed to be eaten, no matter how delicious they are. Bugs are usually considered in that category. So it's not (only) about taste or even texture, but truly psychology.

Which, as the variety and diversity of foods in different cultures show, can change like the wind. >

Not as drastically as this would require it. Especially europe and north america are disgusted by bugs in general. Again, this is more about psychology than culture. Many people have arachnophobia (I know spiders aren't insects, but many people don't care about taxonomy enough to see a notable difference), and you're suggesting people will suddenly accept eating something comparable to that, let alone in a gridlocked cultural development that only progresses through intercultural mixture based on similarities. >


Many people have arachnophobia 

People are scared of scorpions too and they will gladly eat crawfish which is nearly identical in appearance. What we think looks appetizing is a cultural concept and entirely dependent on what foods we think taste good. >

But agains, it's not appearance, it's psychology. A scorpion and a fish aren't the same thing. People like eating fish and crustaceans, so crawfish isn't that different (and doesn't looks like a scorpion at all). However eating an insect (again, people tend to ignore taxonomy and consider scorpions and spiders as such) is disgusting simply because they are insects.
No, it does depend on what tastes good, but there are multiple factors, not only taste. Texture, appeareance and simply what it is matters as well. If I had a literal garbage bag, which for the sake of argument is completely healthy and tastes good, many people would still not want to it it because the thought of eating trash is disgusting to them.
But hey, since you said psychology can change like the wind, maybe cannibalism will be on topic as much as bugs do. In both cases it's something people consider disgusting, but with some super sauce to make them tasty, people would eat, by your CMV, anyways. I wouldn't say that, again, because of psychology, but your counterpoint is that things can change. So yeah, cannibalism for 2030? >

Why do you think this? Do cows not taste good? Yet Indians still do not eat them due to a strong cultural stigma against eating them. Do pigs not taste good? Yet Muslims or Jews don't eat them. Westerners have a very strong stigma against eating bugs. It's true it's not a religious stigma but it's pretty damn strong.
Food is more than taste good = people will consume it no matter what cultural influences there are.
Attempts to encourage the eating of bugs especially as a cheap alternative to meat for the lower class in preparation for restricting or taxing meat consumption comes off as incredibly degrading to most people. >

The criticism isn't generally focused on eating bugs is a terrible idea. It's that bugs are an acceptable substitute for meat.
Usually within the context of rich and powerful getting meat, but working class people need to eat bugs. The focus is on the have and have nots. Working class are told to sacrifice, while the rich get even more.
If rich people universally replaced their meat consumption with bugs, there'd be less of a reaction. >

Apart from the fact that bugs as a source of replacement protein is a media hype and nothing more.. bugs are just scary, dude. Like I for one have a severe phobia of basically all bugs. I've had persisting night terrors from just having a bug on my bed one time, I have whole parts of my OCD dedicated to bugs, I recently had to make my parents drive over from 20 minutes away just to kill a cockroach because I couldn't and ended up having a panic attack in the process. I don't want them in my vicinity, you could not pay me to put one in my mouth. Now I know not everyone is as bad as me, but most people don't like bugs. They wouldn't want to touch them or have them crawling around, and I don't really think that's societal because there are definitely lizard brain reasons to be afraid of/have an aversion to bugs. Even the non venomous and poisonous ones can still cause nasty bites which could get infected and kill you. So yeah, if you wanted people to eat bugs for whatever reason, you're not just bugpilling people by opening their stupid western eyes or whatever. You're gonna have to get past their lizard brains. Stuff like cricket flour products might be your best bet, just because the bug is in something that looks appetizing as opposed to it being the dish itself. >

I tried crickets one time... Actually two times. (They were fried and had seasoning on them, so tasted pretty decent.) The first time I was fine. The second I broke out in itchy hives. I'm not 100% sure it was the crickets because I tried some other odd things that day too, but I've ruled out some of the other ones since. 
It's completely possible to be allergic to chitin, which would be a factor hurting some people's ability to get used to eating them even if they get past the stigma. >

I saw an episode of Naked and Afraid where a guy had an allergic reaction to crickets.  The narrator said it isn’t a uncommon >

You may be right in a long term sense, as with any food, if it doesn’t taste good we won’t eat it.  Taste doesn’t matter though if no one will put it in their mouth though.  More important in the short term is probably making them not look like bugs to get over that first hurdle.  
Cricket and mealworm flour are already out there, and can be easily substituted for nut flour in most recipes.  Many people would still be mad if you fed them cricket muffins without telling them, but a decent number wouldn’t.  Hanging someone a recognizable food like a muffin and saying it has cricket flour is far more likely to work than handing them a plate of garlic sautéed whole crickets regardless of taste. >

Maybe this is a location bias for me, but in the desert areas in California and Nevada, as well as areas throughout the Midwest, “bug” lollipops are a thing. You can get scorpions and similar bugs in lollipops at gas stations and tourist shops. I doubt tourists commonly eat them, more likely just buy them as novelties, but I know locals do, particularly children. They obviously find it kind of silly and fun, but they are willing to eat it, despite its appearance. >

It's not just taste alone, it's texture and that bugs in general are just considered gross pests by a lot of people, the same way that eating mice and rats wouldn't be popular, though some eat them and they probably aren't much different than eating something like a rabbit. Also you have to think about how with current snacks like a bag of chips, the bottom of the bag has crumbs that no one thinks twice about eating, imagine with insects instead of crumbs, you get a ton of cricket legs and wings. That would gross many people out even if they liked the taste. >

I’m sorry, I don’t really want bugs anywhere near me where I can see them - why would I want them knowingly in my mouth? 
They freak me out. 
I know people eat them and that some people I know even like crickets served at a Mexican restaurant for instance, but I just can’t. I don’t care how they taste- they could taste like blue gummy bears or pizza and it’s still a “nope” from me if they look like a bug or if bugs are the main ingredient. >

Redditors apparently seem to be unable to comprehend the sense of disgust. >

A large part of disgust is a social construct. People were disgusted by lobsters a century ago and now many people find them appetizing. >

I would tend to agree with you considering that you are indeed a Redditor who doesn't comprehend disgust
2 billion people consume bugs worldwide—because a certain culture is disgusted by something doesn't mean that all cultures are. Many Indians would be disgusted by the idea of consuming beef while mamy Muslims would be disgusted by the idea of eating pork. Disgust in food is largely a social construct. 
A shrimp isn't very different looking than a cockroach, nor is a crawfish very different looking from a scorpion. They all have the same shell, antennae, and little legs. Yet our disgust for one and not the other has everything to do with how we perceive it within the constructs of our culture. >


A shrimp isn't very different looking than a cockroach

Respectfully, tehy don't look alike at all, making me suspicious of whether you've seen a cockroach or shrimp before.
While the scorpion comparison might make a little more sense, they aren't insects either. Them being hazardous to handle and contain toxins make a very good reason not to eat them.

They all have the same shell, antennae, and little legs.

... you know what, pigs too have two round eyes, have a vertebrae, and have 'one bone, two bone,  many bones' structure in their limbs. Guess what, just like humans. 
People usually do not get 'disgusted' by pigs and cows, but might be by pork and beef. On the other hand, disgust of cockroaches and maggots is pretty universal - before they even get processed into food. The disgust is not at a food level, but at the insects themselves, that can be a hard-coded biological reaction to counteract. >


Them being hazardous to handle and contain toxins make a very good reason not to eat them.

For for clarity, they contain venom, which is just another protein and safe for ingestion. 

Poison is dangerous when you eat it, touch it, or respirate it.
Venom is dangerous when it's injected into you (stinger, snake bite, etc)

They aren't quite the same category, and while the taste may not be appealing, you can more or less safely drink venom (snake, scorpion, or other).
I'm not advocating for eating scorpions. The texture is odd. But it's not dangerous in any way >

Well, mostly yes, I agree that it's mostly harmless after proper prep like cooking, still it is hazardous to handle at some point in time, like when turning it off. 
In terms of semantics, venom is a category of animal produced toxin, which I stand by my usage of words. Some venom can still be hazardous even if not injected, like that of the blue ringed octopus. >

Turning what off? You were talking about scorpions. The proteins in venom will denature with heat also and not be hazardous to handle. Dead scorpions are not hazardous to handle because there's no musculature to pump venom through the stinger. 
The assertion that they are somehow toxic and unsafe for ingestion doesn't hold up. 
TTX is a neurotoxin. Not a venom. >

Turning the scorpions off my friend, they don't show up at your windows dead like some birds do.
ETA: TTX is definitely a venom (by definition) in the case of blue ringed octopus, they do inject it via its beak. >

TTX in the octopus is a bacterial product, and comparing a bacterial secretion which is also a neurotoxin that's hazardous when ingested and present in multiple species to arthropod definition to make an argument about eating arthropods is really beggaring the definition. Bye. >


In Western culture, there is a lot of stigma behind bugs—for no other reason other than the social concept that bugs aren't really meant to be food.

It's not just 'Western' culture. Islam prohibits eating bugs except locusts (because Mohammad allegedly ate them while on military campaign) and Judaism prohibits it altogether. 
From what I can find, about 2 billion people eat insects and therefore insect eaters are a minority. It seems inaccurate to me to describe this taboo as 'western'. >

None of what you said is relevant. Religious taboos fall under "social concept". I also didn't know that many people already eat bugs, and I don't see how that refutes my point. >

Throughout your post, you write as if the taboo against eating insects is a western thing. I showed it wasn't. It's a  thing for 75% of the population.
Only 25% of the world's population eats insects, and among those are some people who are not doing it by choice. It's probably not a coincidence that the highest # of countries where insects are consumed, are in sub-saharan Africa. >


Only 25%

!delta for unexpectedly proving OP's point to me and changing my view.
I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but I support insect consumption because it is sustainable. 
Your fact that 25% of the humans on this planet regularly consume insect protein has changed my previous view that insects will not become a regular food source in the future.
Now I believe the food source will become normalized, not only because they are delicious, nutritious, and sustainable, but because humans have clearly demonstrated their adaptability to culturally normalizing their consumption. That was precisely OP's point. Thank you. >

Yeah I didn't even know that. The dude said "only 2 billion people eat insects" and I was like "wait TWO BILLION people eat insects? This is not helping whatever point you're trying to make right now." >

I think his argument was saying that they can eat bugs and live or starve. 
Bugs will always be a niche or trendy thing to try unless some major catastrophe happens that makes other proteins unobtainable even then plant based will most likely be preferred. >

Why not ask yourself instead : why people eat bug?
People eat bugs in place where other food are not available not by choice. Poverty and overpopulation exist sadly. >

No, that is in fact an objectively false statement.
Something can "taste good" and "cause birth defects when measured over a long enough period of time" >

True. I used to gag at the idea of eating crickets. Then i moved to mexico... DELICIOUS! they can taste so good and be so crunchy. I crave it every now and then :) in the small towns that my parents are from they would go out and collect bugs to take them home and make them yummy. It's definitely normal for them because they grew up with it, but me being born in America and never having to eat bugs I couldn't stand the idea of it. Never hurts to try something new!! >

You can already buy cricket flour (although it's relatively expensive compared to regular flour or even nut flours) and it apparently taste fine when incorporated into baked goods but few people seem eager to try it. I don't think it's just a taste thing -- as others have said there's a big cultural component. >

That's what I said. It's only a social concept that people don't like eating bugs currently. >

Crawfish are good. People that are rich eat crawfish in the south. As you are cracking the little buggers in half and tossing their husks into a pile, you cannot help but to notice that their underside looks like the underside of a roach. Nevertheless you grab the next one. *Shrug* >

My wife is from a culture that eats horse, she doesn't eat it. Me being western I love that shit. It's not about taste. Technically bull balls are edible, but I will never eat them. It's more of a mental issue that if it tastes good or if it's edible