You Vill Eat Ze Bugs! (And nothing but the techno-system you supported will be to blame)
Article by qpooqpoo
Spend any time in the politically charged fringes of the internet in the last few years, and chances are you have heard of this phrase. It’s a funny caricature of Charles Schwab, the former head of the World Economic Forum ("WEF"), an institution which has been promoting the benefits of integrating cultivated insects for mass consumption into the modern economy.[1] This initiative aligns with their focus on various economic and technological programs that supposedly promote "sustainability." Schwab and the WEF have become the boogeymen-of-the-day for conservatives and related anti-status quo currents of discontent.[2]
The mainstream media’s treatment of this meme is instructive in how the system attempts to deflect criticism of technological society as a whole; criticism which could potentially threaten its own security (the media by and large represent the propaganda arm of the system). NPR may not be seen as "mainstream" and one might object that they are far to the left of mainstream values. But it's a distinction without a difference: the general current of leftism today, aside from the most radical communist manifestations, is perfectly consistent with the values and priorities of big business, globalization, and technology. It should come as no surprise therefore that NPR effectively runs cover for the WEF.
In a piece titled "How a conspiracy theory about eating bugs made its way to international politics,"[3] NPR’s hosts play clips of conservative political pundit Michael Knowles stating, "The ruling class really, really wants us to eat bugs," followed by a soundbite montage of other right-wing media personalities. These clips illustrate the right’s reaction, which often blends parody, sarcasm, and hyperbole with serious criticism. However, despite the recent availability of actual products containing cricket protein,[4] NPR distracts its audience by framing the criticism as mere conspiracy, thus sidestepping a meaningful discussion on the topic. The term "conspiracy theory" has become, to use the left's own jargon of late, a "dog whistle" to their audience—a buzzword meant to poison the well and snap the audience into toeing the ideological line. But "conspiracy theory" isn't enough in this case. Why not also add a charge of "racism" to the mix? It's the tried-and-true buzzword for this purpose. And so, naturally, coverage of the political right's reaction to the WEF's love of grocery store cricket-burgers—whether in the form of lighthearted memes (humor is a powerful coping tool for genuine distress) or more serious arguments—must include a charge of racism.[5]
The system (represented by institutions like the WEF) promotes the integration of insect protein as a sustainable meat alternative, a radical departure from the norm that predictably holds the potential to create serious anxieties about the future of technological society and its implications for human life. The system's propaganda thereby ramps up its judo trick on the public mind: potential public backlash that could be directed at the technological system itself is instead redirected at the individuals who resist this development (in this case the political right). Seeing the media attack them reinforces the right's preconception that edible insects are indeed being rammed through by bad actors with the malicious intent of subjugating the masses. The right in turn attacks the left, and the whole issue gets sucked into that worthless black hole that is the left vs. right culture war. Meanwhile the more serious considerations surrounding what this implies about the broader trajectory of technological civilization are conveniently drowned out in all the ensuing noise.
The abundance of red meat in the modern Western diet is the product of specific material conditions. Consumption patterns of red meat in the West are intricately linked to technological and economic factors, and these patterns are likely to change as society evolves. The Industrial Revolution brought about profound changes in agriculture and food production: Mechanization, advances in transportation, and the development of refrigeration transformed the way food was produced, distributed, and consumed. These innovations made it possible to economically raise livestock on a massive scale and transport it over long distances, leading to an unprecedented availability of red meat in the diet. In the United States, for example, the expansion of the railroad network in the 19th century facilitated the transport of cattle from the Midwest to urban centers in the East. The development of refrigerated rail cars in the 1870s further enabled the widespread distribution of fresh meat. These technological advancements, combined with economic growth and rising incomes, made red meat a staple in the Western diet.
But the same technological forces that led to widespread meat consumption could be moving to favor alternatives. The system now faces hard natural limits. Increasing efficiency to adapt to diminishing resources is necessary, but providing the global population with high living standards is increasingly impractical. Rising housing prices and shrinking living spaces reflect these constraints, necessitating a shift in social aspirations. The livestock industry faces significant challenges in a modern globalized technological context where 8 billion people are aspiring to reach the levels of meat consumption of the industrial middle class. The increasing strains on natural resources are obvious. As these resources become scarcer, it is only reasonable to extrapolate that the economic efficiency of large-scale meat production diminishes. Meanwhile, technological advancements in alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat substitutes and lab-grown meat, are creating viable and potentially more economical options. These technological innovations promise to reshape food production and consumption patterns by providing cost-effective alternatives to traditional meat.
Indeed, insect farming requires significantly fewer resources compared to traditional livestock, such as land, water, and feed, for the same amount of consumable protein by weight. This is due to insects being far more efficient at converting feed into protein. By some estimates, insects are 12-25 times more efficient than livestock in converting low-protein feed into protein.[6] Furthermore, they have much faster reproductive rates and lifecycles, particularly so in optimal industrial conditions, contributing to their efficiency and lower costs per outputs.[7] Insect farming therefore utilizes significantly less land than cattle for the equivalent mass of protein produced,[8] potentially freeing up more land for the system to utilize in other economic exploitations such as in housing, factories, and power stations. Therefore, beyond any proactive policymaking, the invisible hand of the free market may well naturally select for insect protein as a viable commodity. In simple terms, evolving technological factors could simply make insect-protein alternatives to red meat cheaper for the consumer. And if it is a choice between going without protein altogether because the beef is too expensive, or eating insect-derived substitutes, most people will choose the insect-derived substitutes. The industrial system has plenty of time and resources to reconcile the public psychologically, via education and propaganda, to the new market normality.
The industrial system is already promoting a new morality suited to these new conditions—one of "sustainability" and "ethical" consumption. The new morality frames reduced consumption as a virtue rather than a sacrifice, encouraging the acceptance of new lifestyles like living in "pods" (micro-homes), eating alternative proteins, being "zero waste," "low consumption," and "anti-car," etc., etc. For example, a slew of articles is pumped out scolding everyone about the environmental impacts of travel vacation,[9] and surveys begin to show that concerns over the environment are factoring into choices to travel less frequently and less far.[10] Market forces will compel conformity, as people choose affordable alternatives out of necessity. The moralistic "sustainable" branding stands to palliate the public and reduce their resentment of the new economic reality (and thus their potentially disruptive rebellious impulses). Conservatives may resist, but economic pressures will drive adaptation. As one astute writer put it, "[i]f you see supermarkets filling their shelves with an ever-wider range of meatless meat products, it’s not because someone at [the WEF] told them to."[11]
Whether or not the industrial system ultimately integrates insect-protein in the modern food supply at scale therefore depends not on human will, but on purely technical factors: whether the technological system ultimately benefits in efficiency and can adjust the population accordingly (itself a purely technical problem). The right can rail all it wants against the idea of eating a large portion of their protein in the form of insects, but all their huffing and puffing will be just as futile as their railing against the loss of religious conviction or the loss of local autonomy—technological progress itself necessarily entailed the erosion of these and many other traditional values. And once the new norm of insect chomping suburbanites is established and the battle has been lost, the conservatives will accept it as an unfortunate but inevitable fact of life—and move on to the next disturbing technological development which they will lose to again, and on and on. All the while the political left—which has abandoned all commitments to individual freedom and have fully internalized the basic values of the technological system—will delight in seeing the right so disturbed by these technological developments, and never waste an opportunity to attack and divert into side-show bickering the various ways in which the right manifests its anxieties.
___________
NOTES:
[1] See, e.g., (1) "Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems", July 12, 2021, at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/why-we-need-to-give-insects-the-role-they-deserve-in-our-food-systems/; (2) "5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change", February 9, 2022, at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/02/how-insects-positively-impact-climate-change/; (3) "Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon", July 16, 2018, at https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/07/good-grub-why-we-might-be-eating-insects-soon/.
[2] Not exclusively a right-leaning concern, this meme also appeals to components of the left that view the WEF as a capitalist bastion of a corrupt and morally bankrupt corporate elite.
[3] Jingnan, Huo. “How a Conspiracy Theory about Eating Bugs Made Its Way to International Politics.” NPR, March 31, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/31/1167550482/how-a-conspiracy-theory-about-eating-bugs-made-its-way-to-international-politics.
[4] E.g.: (1) “Prebiotic Protein Bar Variety Box”, Accessed on December 16, 2024, at https://exoprotein.com/collections/all-products/products/high-protein-bar-variety-box; (2) “Kyoto startup is eager for you to try its umami-rich cricket burger”, September 25, 2022, at https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Startups/Kyoto-startup-is-eager-for-you-to-try-its-umami-rich-cricket-burger; (3) “My (Favourite at the Moment) Cricket Powder Burger”, August 17, 2020, https://circleharvest.com.au/products/cricket-protein-burger-mix, and so on...
[5] From a separate NPR's piece, "This right wing conspiracy theory about eating bugs is about as racist as you think", March 6, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1197955874/code-switch-bug-eating-03-06-2024
[6] Li Mengjiao, et. al., "Edible Insects: A New Sustainable Nutritional Resource Worth Promoting," Foods, November 9, 2023, p. 1.
[7] Ibid., p. 2.
[8] In an interview with the economist, CEO of one Aspire Food Group explains that in one 12-acre parcel a few thousand kilograms of meat can be produced per year, whereas on the same 12-acre parcel, 12 million kilograms of insect protein can be produced. Efforts are already underway to scale the technology and a factory producing insects is being built by Aspire in Canada as of this writing. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8-uCob-_XE
[9] E.g., Timperley, Jocelyn, "Should we give up flying for the sake of the environment?" BBC News, Feb. 18, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-how-to-cut-your-carbon-emissions-when-flying, and Newman, Andy, "If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?" The New York Times, June 3, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/travel/traveling-climate-change.html
[10] E.g., Insurance, Mercury. “Sustainable Travel Forecast: Is Eco-Friendly Travel on the Rise?” Sustainable Travel Forecast: Is Eco-Friendly Travel on the Rise?, June 27, 2024. https://www.mercuryinsurance.com/resources/travel/sustainable-travel-forecast-survey.html#:~:text=28.7%25%20of%20respondents%20have%20opted,home%20to%20reduce%20travel%20emissions.
[11] Franklin, Peter, "Why we'll end up eating bugs," UnHerd, January 20, 2022.
Copyright © 2024 by Wilderness Front LLC. All Rights Reserved.