Bugs and insects as food

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

Intelligence is a considerable aspect, but self-awareness more importantly.
Once again, how do you know what is and is not self-aware? I'll grant you that most available evidence points to a distinct lack of self-awareness or perhaps even consciousness in insects. But even mammals like cows, or birds like chickens, are highly debatably self-aware. They have never passed a mirror test, for example. Surprisingly few creatures on the planet can. I guess what I'm asking isn't why you consider an insect unworthy, but why you consider some higher animals worthy of "personhood." Aside from cetaceans, great apes and some lemurs, elephants, crows, and octopi, no animal on Earth has demonstrably proven its self-awareness in scientific tests for it. Bear in mind, as well, that there is a big difference between consciousness and self-awareness. If you're drawing the line at self-awareness, you should have little trouble eating the flesh of most mammals, including cows, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, sheep, goats, and so forth. I'll grant you a muddy asterisk on dogs, pigs, and cats. But most herd animals are pretty freaking unintelligent.

I'm not a vegan, or else I wouldn't be asking for suggestions on what insects to eat.

Click to expand...

I apologize; I was under the impression that you were. My bad.

I suspect that insects/bugs aren't (as) capable of suffering because they are a common prey. Evolutionarily, developmentally, physiologically, it would not make sense for them to experience existence or pain to the magnitude of other animals.

Click to expand...

Everything in the animal kingdom is prey for something else, with the exception of apex predators (and even they are "prey" for parasites, fungi, viruses, bacteria, and so forth -- not to mention lots of other creatures when they die). You can't selectively apply the law of the jungle to some creatures and not to others.

I don't eat clams.

Click to expand...

Biting my tongue here and trying not to make the obvious joke.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

Biting my tongue here and trying not to make the obvious joke.

lol he's GAY

Originally Posted by kwilkinson

Click to expand...

lol he's GAY

lulz!

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

Excellent conflation to include teleology.
It's not a conflation and teleology is an adjunct to sciences, not a science per se. In other words, teleology requires a qualification (e.g. evolutionary teleology, teleology [or telos] of an author, etc.) The usage irks me, that's all. Nosu3's error is assuming all prey naturally cannot feel much pain, which is patently idiotic and doesn't answer the most pertinent question: what is the amount of pain a creature is required to feel before it becomes peoplez?

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

Once again, how do you know what is and is not self-aware?

I guess what I'm asking isn't why you consider an insect unworthy, but why you consider some higher animals worthy of "personhood." Aside from cetaceans, great apes and some lemurs, elephants, crows, and octopi, no animal on Earth has demonstrably proven its self-awareness in scientific tests for it.

Bear in mind, as well, that there is a big difference between consciousness and self-awareness. If you're drawing the line at self-awareness, you should have little trouble eating the flesh of most mammals, including cows, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, sheep, goats, and so forth. I'll grant you a muddy asterisk on dogs, pigs, and cats. But most herd animals are pretty freaking unintelligent.

Everything in the animal kingdom is prey for something else, with the exception of apex predators (and even they are "prey" for parasites, fungi, viruses, bacteria, and so forth -- not to mention lots of other creatures when they die). You can't selectively apply the law of the jungle to some creatures and not to others.

Animals must be "aware" to some extent in order to maneuver through existence. Mirror tests as you mentioned, to determine self-awareness. Intelligence is important being in combination with self-awareness, it reflects the level of consciousness. For example, both a human baby and human adult can pass a self-awareness test in a mirror, but undoubtedly the human adult will be of a greater level of consciousness due to intelligence. I guess I just extend this to other animals who are of higher intelligence, even if they might not be able to self-recognize. Animals with higher intelligence also have greater cognitive abilities which possibly makes them more susceptible for complex emotions and suffering.

The reason I am so adamant that animals who are shown to be self-aware be treated in the same respect as we would humans is because they posses the same cognitive ability that makes humans a "special" species, and that is the ability to be consciously thinking individuals, though at at a lesser extent.

Yea, everything is prey, but the idea of common prey is only to support the suspicion of an animal with minuscule cognitive abilities. It's known that many animals (some exception) with short life spans and being common prey are of lower intelligence because their existence and cognition are built simply for reproducing as fast as possible. Note that humans and dolphins (forgive me) who dominate their own environments are the most intelligent species and self-aware. (and both communities of people).

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

Biting my tongue here and trying not to make the obvious joke.

Yeah, as was I while thinking of another name for clam to avoid the obvious joke.



But back on topic... Which insects or bugs do you eat? I've only known of crickets, mealworms, ants, grasshoppers and cockroaches (which I read are the best). Did I miss some?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

It's not a conflation and teleology is an adjunct to sciences, not a science per se. In other words, teleology requires a qualification (e.g. evolutionary teleology, teleology [or telos] of an author, etc.) The usage irks me, that's all.

Nosu3's error is assuming all prey naturally cannot feel much pain, which is patently idiotic and doesn't answer the most pertinent question: what is the amount of pain a creature is required to feel before it becomes peoplez?

You can have science without making the nature's watchmaker type association/fallacy. I think this is what he's doing.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

Yea, everything is prey, but the idea of common prey is only to support the suspicion of an animal with minuscule cognitive abilities. It's known that many animals (some exception) with short life spans and being common prey are of lower intelligence because their existence and cognition are built simply for reproducing as fast as possible. Note that humans and dolphins (forgive me) who dominate their own environments are the most intelligent species and self-aware.

See, he just did it again.

But it is I that is teh dumbz.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

Animals must be "aware" to some extent in order to maneuver through existence. Mirror tests as you mentioned, to determine self-awareness. Intelligence is important being in combination with self-awareness, it reflects the level of consciousness. For example, both a human baby and human adult can pass a self-awareness test in a mirror, but undoubtedly the human adult will be of a greater level of consciousness due to intelligence. I guess I just extend this to other animals who are of higher intelligence, even if they might not be able to self-recognize. Animals with higher intelligence also have greater cognitive abilities which possibly makes them more susceptible for complex emotions and suffering.
Once again, though, you're dodging the real question I'm asking, which is: why do you not eat certain mammals that we know are not of "higher" intelligence? Cows, for instance. Cows are dumber than the **** they produce, neuroscientifically speaking. They rank below several invertebrates in intelligence, and many birds. Cows are neither self-aware in the human sense, nor remarkably intelligent in a ranking of all species on the planet. Why do you grant them special dispensation that you would not grant to an insect? Cows are clearly more intelligent than insects, and yet, they are really not very intelligent at all. The problem you're running into is defining "higher intelligence." You create so many arbitrary distinctions that are neither backed by science nor without logical contradiction. Why don't you just come out and admit that there is no rational, biological basis for your choices? Rather, you're just avoiding certain meats because vegeterian/vegan/whatever culture in this country has long ago decreed that those animals are "intelligent," when in reality, they're not.

The reason I am so adamant that animals who are shown to be self-aware be treated in the same respect as we would humans is because they posses the same cognitive ability that makes humans a "special" species, and that is the ability to be consciously thinking individuals, though at at a lesser extent.

Click to expand...

This is a separate issue entirely. I never said we should eat animals who are self-aware. In fact, I went through considerable lengths to define where the self-awareness cutoff is (currently) scientifically believed to exist.

Yea, everything is prey, but the idea of common prey is only to support the suspicion of an animal with minuscule cognitive abilities.

Click to expand...

"Common prey" means absolutely nothing. It's an arbitrary condition that you've created to suit your ethics. How are you defining "common?" And does nature agree with you on that definition? Seems to me that nature is rather indifferent; everything gets eaten by something. A shark doesn't really give half a crap if the baby dolphin it just devoured is extremely intelligent. Are sharks "evil" because of this?

It's known that many animals (some exception) with short life spans and being common prey are of lower intelligence because their existence and cognition are built simply for reproducing as fast as possible.

Click to expand...

That's a complete misunderstanding of natural selection. Nothing is "built" for any purpose. Things have evolved because the environment "selects" for the most adaptable mutations and adaptations in a species, and so, the species evolves on that path. At no point in time did nature decide "You know what? The world needs a common prey species, so I'm going to prevent the cricket from evolving a higher intellect." No. The cricket does just fine in its environments with the intelligence it has. This has no connection whatsoever to any other animal's right to eat it, or lack thereof.

Note that humans and dolphins (forgive me) who dominate their own environments are the most intelligent species and self-aware.

Click to expand...

Once again, this is beside any point here. Furthermore, how do dolphins "dominate their own environment?" They use sea sponges to scrounge up food, which I'll admit is rather cool. But quite a few animals use tools. Using tools does not = dominating or engineering your environment.

But back on topic... Which insects or bugs do you eat? I've only known of crickets, mealworms, ants, grasshoppers and cockroaches (which I read are the best). Did I miss some?

Click to expand...

I dunno, broseph, I don't generally make a habit of eating insects. Your guess is as good as mine. But you can eat pretty much any animal that isn't naturally toxic or prone to contamination. I'm sure most of the arthropod species on the planet are technically edible.

I've had chocolate covered crickets and they weren't half bad. I also went on a wilderness thing a few years ago and ate a lot of berries and twigs and some bugs. And of course, escargot is just delicious.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

Click to expand...

I've had chocolate covered crickets and they weren't half bad. I also went on a wilderness thing a few years ago and ate a lot of berries and twigs and some bugs. And of course, escargot is just delicious.
Chocolate-covered crickets contain milk, so he can't eat those. Also, snails are mollusks, yet they are also considered bugs according to folk taxonomy. Does this mean they are or are not peoplez?

don't be stupid, only dolphins are also people

move to oaxaca. chapulines (grasshoppers) are fried as snacks (crunchy, salty, chile dust ... not much intrinsic flavor). And iv'e had (only once) agave grubs (in tacos with guacamole ... IIRC, they were, actually, pretty delicious).

Originally Posted by foodguy

Click to expand...

move to oaxaca. chapulines (grasshoppers) are fried as snacks (crunchy, salty, chile dust ... not much intrinsic flavor). And iv'e had (only once) agave grubs (in tacos with guacamole ... IIRC, they were, actually, pretty delicious).

you never ate the fried worms?

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

I suspect that insects/bugs aren't (as) capable of suffering because they are a common prey. Evolutionarily, developmentally, physiologically, it would not make sense for them to experience existence or pain to the magnitude of other animals.

Wow.

Originally Posted by scarphe

Click to expand...

you never ate the fried worms?
i don't think those are actually worms. i think those are the "grubs" i referred to. they live in the heart of the blue agave, the one that is used for tequila (yes, they are the "worms" in the bottle).

Originally Posted by foodguy

Click to expand...

i don't think those are actually worms. i think those are the "grubs" i referred to. they live in the heart of the blue agave, the one that is used for tequila (yes, they are the "worms" in the bottle).
we may be using a different translation. gusano at i thnk translate as worm. but i am nto 100% sure. and what tequila has gusano in the bottle?