Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new, certainly exponential variable, is the viral media growth in popularity of eating bugs. Viral(exponential) adoption of consuming bugs will increase the risk of (apparently already great) transmission of deadly diseases as an increasing rate. This very conversation stands as of evidence of exponential adoption of disease transmission from bug consumption due to online media growth on the subject.
Sorry, could you point me to any exponential increase in the popularity of eating insects? I don't really see how this conversation is proving anything of the sort. (If it did, could we please talk about eating a healthy balanced diet, too? I'd like to see an exponential increase in adoption of that, just from talking about it.)
Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
461–470 of 495 posts
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#462Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still a period in which the increase in probability function could exhibit an exponential rate of growth though right? At 1 we are all dead as well right?
In principle, yes. In practice: in order for exponential growth (or any growth) to happen, things must have been smaller in the past. Do you want to argue that the risks were so much in the past? Eating insects is probably about as dangerous as it was ten years ago or twenty years ago. Not all that much has changed, or has it? If more people are eating insects than before that might increase risks. Are you suggesting…
So the counter argument you postulated(seemingly to undermine the validity of my argument with a tangential non-sequitur of math term application purism) fails on a principle basis upon further examination, yet we are persisting the thread with definitively unprovable practical application arguments that result from an (assumed) lack of objective related research and the reality that we are discussing forecasting probabilities using reason.
At this point I have to wonder, do you have any vested interest in the insect as food industry? I see you have accumulated many points over a decade and YC is running a few horses in this race.
And we are discussing public health and possible pandemic initiators predicated on nascent scientific research here, no? Dismissal through obfuscation and fallacious intellectual undermining leveraging local social clout?
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your link seems broken, but by googling I think I found the video on youtube. Is this the same one that says "1 Billion people will be displaced by climate change"? Because, that seems like a prediction of what might happen in the future, rather than a wishlist item of Bill Gates and the rest of the Pentaverat. The video seems to be a very brief summary of this process: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GFC_Annual_Re…
The URL is quite odd in that it ends with a period which it seems that Hacker News is parsing, more normally, as a period instead of a part of the URL. In the following URL, manually add a period at the end: https://archive.org/details/world-economic-forum-presents-th... .
So, now that we can all watch the same video.
What's wrong with these predictions?
Is it because they're wrong and we think something else will happen?
Is it because they're right and we think the academics and politicians involved in coming up the predictions are to 'blame' for them?
I really don't get it.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#464Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over the years I've seen several female friends try to stay vegan. One managed a decade before she couldn't put up with the anemia any more. The others quit sooner, because of weight loss, malnutrition, and other issues. It seems humans were evolved to scavenge animals as well as eating plants. It's not just protein, it's iron and fats, and a few other things.
We evolved to hunt animals. The evidence being our capacity for long distance running, our bipedal stature freeing up our forelimbs for grabbing / killing with tools, our intelligence, our dentition. We shouldn't be ashamed of this fact any more than you should be ashamed that your dog or cat is a carnivore. At least we have the choice to not be cruel to the animal as we eat it, we can kill it humanely rather than di…
We also evolved to store calories as fat. But, turns out that if you do that excessively, it's not that much of a benefit anymore.
When was the last time you ran a long distance to kill a deer? For the majority of people, it's mainly about long distance driving to the supermarket to pick up a cut of meat. The cognitive dissonance is pretty real here. There is no screaming to be heard at the supermarket checkout. If there were, I don't think we would be having this discussion.
> ... we can kill it humanely ...
That's some wishful thinking if I've ever seen it. I encourage you to actually look at how most animals are kept and slaughtered. Then again, after the "life" most of those animals have been living, death, in whatever form, is a relief.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
The URL is quite odd in that it ends with a period which it seems that Hacker News is parsing, more normally, as a period instead of a part of the URL. In the following URL, manually add a period at the end: https://archive.org/details/world-economic-forum-presents-th... .
So, now that we can all watch the same video. What's wrong with these predictions? Is it because they're wrong and we think something else will happen? Is it because they're right and we think the academics and politicians involved in coming up the predictions are to 'blame' for them? I really don't get it.
It's difficult to estimate the exact wealth of the WEF and their delegates/companies, but it's going to be a very large share, and likely the wide majority, of all wealth on this planet. The group that owns everything, stating you will own nothing and instead just rent [from them] is something few will regard in a positive way.
When the exact people actively working to change the world in pursuit of these predictions make them, they are no longer predictions but goals.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chicken is less dangerous than pork. I am not going to get involved in a religious argument, but I didn't mention it was the only reason, I said it was one of the reasons.
This simply isn’t true. From a health as well as safety standpoint, chicken correlates with worth health outcomes and definitely leads to more illnesses.
The salmonella you get from undercooked chicken is less dangerous than the parasites in under cooked pork.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not as dangerous as eating raw pork. Relatively speaking, raw pork is much more dangerous.
The data doesn’t back this up though. More people get sick from chicken.
We are not talking about quantity, we are talking about severity. Plus, you can't use modern data for this because modern stock raising methods mitigate a lot of the dangers from pork.
The parasites from undercooked pork can be very dangerous.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#468Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't cooking solve this problem? Rare meat is problematic for this reason. Also my understanding is that some traditions in Judaism and Islam even for allow insect consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy_in_humans#Rejectio...
Yes, there are 4 types of locust that are edible according to Kashrut, but my understanding that it's mostly for the environmental reasons - because migrating locusts causing so much damage to agriculture - the Rabbis permitted to eat them (similarly as some vegans are saying that oysters can be eaten since they're sustainable and clean the oceans). Lately I heard another explanation by Prof. Yigal Bin-Nun[1], that w…
>> similarly as some vegans are saying that oysters can be eaten since they're sustainable and clean the oceans
Never heard that argument, but it seems like a misunderstanding. Peter Singer made the point that oysters have no nervous system and are therefore as plant-like as animals can come and probably non-sentient. The fact that oysters clean the oceans would also be a pretty strange argument. That's why there are so chock full of contaminants and pathogens in most places and many countries have special allowances to make them street legal when virtually any other food with the same toxin contents would be banned.
Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#469Re: Edible insects role in transmission of parasitic diseases to humans (2019)
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really well put, and I think is exactly what strikes me as off about these threads as opposed to what I'm used to on HN. It really seems like these conspiracy theories are way more indulged here than they would in any other thread. I'm with you, also from Germany and very rarely eat meat (my rule of thumb is that if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away -- think…
> if it's already dead and in front of me, I'm not going to save anyone by throwing it away That's a sane and reflected reasoning that many of us could take as an example from time to time. I myself have heavily reduced meat consumption, too, though probably not as much as you have. The best thing to do as a starter IMHO is to reduce the "unnecessary" things: Cold cuts can easily replaced by other - vegetarian - alte…
> The only problem I see with this is that then meat becomes the food of the rich, which is unfair.
Truffles have become the food of the rich. Too bad because I like truffles, unfairness is a moot point. I have no "right" to truffles. You should be much more concerned that decent housing or access to housing are becoming privileges than any particular food product.