Home / H. Environment, ecology and agriculture / Part IND
"Eating insects is the sustainable protein of the future"
farming insects may emit less and use less land than livestock farming, but it trades an environmental problem for an unprecedented number of victims. Because they're small, trillions of insects are needed to produce what a few large animals provide, and there is growing evidence that many insects are sentient. There are plant proteins just as efficient, with no one to suffer.
Short answer
Sustainable for whom? For the insects, it means trillions of deaths a year, counting those farmed for food and feed. And there's more and more evidence that many of them feel. If we want protein with little land and few emissions, beans, soy, lentils and chickpeas already do that with no one to suffer. Reducing environmental impact doesn't justify increasing the number of victims.
For children
A cricket is really small. To make a cricket burger, you need lots and lots of crickets. Scientists are finding out that insects learn, remember things and might feel pain. So if we swap cows for crickets, we may not be helping animals: we might be making many more animals suffer. And beans, lentils and chickpeas have lots of protein too.
"If there's a protein as sustainable as cricket protein with no victims at all, why choose the cricket?"
Como pode aparecer
"Eating insects is sustainable; it's the protein of the future."
"Insects don't feel; you can farm as many as you like."
"Cricket burger: protein with a low carbon footprint."
"Fly larvae to feed fish and chickens."
"If meat is sustainable, there's no problem." (which is H13)
"Fish and invertebrates don't feel pain." (which is A6)
The strongest version
"Cricket flour is the future. Lots of protein, little land, almost no emissions. And insects don't feel anything."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Livestock farming is one of the main causes of emissions, deforestation and water use.
- P2Insects convert feed into protein much more efficiently than cattle or pigs, with fewer emissions and less land.
- P3Insects probably don't feel pain, or feel very little.
- CSo replacing meat with insects is a sustainable and ethically acceptable solution.
P1 is true, and P2 has some support: in 2013 the FAO highlighted the feed efficiency of edible insects.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which runs against growing evidence, and the conclusion ignores plant alternatives that meet P2 without victims.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
Premise What it claims Status P1 Livestock farming degrades the environment True P2 Insects are more efficient than cattle Partly: depends on the feed and the species P3 Insects don't feel Contrary to growing evidence Alternative ignored Plant proteins As efficient or more, without victims - b
Where the argument breaks
1. There is evidence of sentience in insects.
Insects show flexible behavior, learning and integration of information. They have centralized brains with specialized structures, the mushroom bodies, with hundreds of thousands of neurons. That's enough, at the very least, to give them the benefit of the doubt, as we already do with octopuses and crustaceans (A6).
2. The number of victims explodes.
According to estimates cited in A Journey Through Animal Ethics, between 2 and 3.2 trillion insects farmed for food and feed die each year, plus trillions of cochineal insects for dye and hundreds of billions of silkworms. Since each insect is tiny, substitution multiplies the victims.
3. The killing isn't gentle.
The usual methods include freezing, immersion in water above 80 °C, microwaves and shredding, after 12 to 24 hours without food.
4. A smaller brain doesn't guarantee less suffering.
In animals with fewer cognitive resources, pain may be the main driver of behavior, and would therefore need to be intense (A22).
5. The plant alternative already exists.
Legumes meet the environmental goal without breeding anyone to die.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Questão de Ética, vol. IV, ch. 19 Gathers evidence of insect sentience, the numbers involved in their exploitation and killing methods The main source for this chapter; the numbers come from estimates by Rowe (2020 and 2021) FAO, *Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security* (2013) Advocates insects as an efficient source of protein The environmental argument in its official version Questão de Ética, vol. II, ch. 13 How to act under uncertainty about sentience The basis for the benefit of the doubt - d
The strongest counter-reply: even if they feel, they count far less
The most serious version grants that insects may feel, but says each one counts far less than a cow or a pig, because its mental life is much simpler. So swapping one cow for thousands of crickets would still be a moral gain.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Counting less doesn't license exploitation.
Even with a lower weight, another argument would be needed to justify breeding and killing.
Scale cancels the discount.
If a human counted a thousand times more than an insect, a thousand insects would even it out, and the real numbers are in the trillions.
The right comparison isn't with the cow.
It's with beans. Against an alternative without victims, any number of victims loses.
- f
Back to the moral question
This chapter shows the risk of defending veganism on environmental grounds: insect farming can be great for the climate and terrible for animals. The question that matters isn't how much land a protein uses, but whether it's fair to breed sentient beings to die when we don't need to.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dichotomy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Ignoring evidence
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Swapping the criterion
Biases
Mind denial
Small, strange animals seem to have no mind
General literature
Collapse of compassion
The more victims, the less we feel for each one
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if it reduces environmental impact, it's acceptable, no matter how many die".
If it applied to…"Sustainable" huntingTap to see
Killing wild animals would be acceptable if it reduced emissions
Disputed by animal advocates
If it applied to…"Sustainable" leatherTap to see
Exploiting animals would be acceptable with a smaller footprint
The same logic
If it applied to…InsectsTap to see
Farming trillions to eat would be acceptable
This is the argument's conclusion
Contradictions
And multiplies the number of animals killed.
On the basis of evidence similar to what exists for insects.
And ignores legumes, which are more efficient than any farming of animals.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Livestock farming causes enormous environmental harm, and looking for alternatives is necessary. It's also true that there is real uncertainty about the sentience of many insect species.
But
But uncertainty calls for caution, not license. And the alternative without victims is already on many people's plates.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- The Exploitation of Insects and Why We Should Oppose It Vol. IV, ch. 19
References
Philosophy and science
- The exploitation of insects and why we should oppose it. In *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. IV.
- Uncertainty about sentience and the benefit of the doubt. In *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. II.
- *Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security*.