As far as I'm aware use of cricket flour is also virtually nonexistent amongst the many cultures that consider whole insects a delicacy.
On the basis of both of the above I'd hazard that cricket flour is unlikely to become a significant staple food even if niche businesses perfect the art of cricket-farming.
Basically, bugs are better, comparable to any other animal source.
Shellfish are considered unclean in Judaism, but you shouldn't generalize from that to assume every other culture views them the same way, as with pork, the religious prohibition probably originated with the elevated risk of food-borne illness that was exacerbated by the climate.
Then you will become like most old people.
New things like interracial marriage, gay marriage, trying to not use a lot of resources(baby boomers not pre war), computers etc frighten old people.
And you also will get older and die, like they will before you.
But while you are dying off the youth will embrace the new and the better.
I just feel sad you have pin holed yourself already to not even want to try.
And although I don't like boiled meats, BBQ rat tastes fine.
[Edit] broil != boil I see from Google :)
Yeah, ain't that a shame? Those old belle-epoque people getting older, while the younger generations embraced Word War I and then the Nazi party.
Or those people that got older after the sixties, were the younger generations embraced Raeganism...
Sarcasm aside, new is not necessarily better. It's not even a strong correlation. There is new stuff that can be better than old, and old stuff that can be better than new in equal measure.
Only technology monotonically progresses to better and more advanced things. Morals and customs (and aesthetics) can and do change either way.
Sure, sure, but getting rid of prejudices that are objectively nonsense is better. Things like which foods are delicacies and which are icky that are not at all based on nutrition, sanitation, etc.
I think the idea of producing cricket meal as a protein supplement/food additive is pretty novel, but it will be a long time before I cook with it directly.
I once met an ancient Jewish gentleman who, due to poverty, had been forced to eat lobsters as a youth. In that day they were considered on par with rats as a food source (not to mention they were forbidden by his religious culture) and he had never recovered from the experience, and still considered them revolting.
I can relate: if it became popular with the youth of tomorrow to broil rats and serve them at market price, I'd probably never get on board.
Like insects, Lobster was once a cheap and common food resource. Money could be made by packing and shipping it of to places where it was exotic and unheard of to the majority of people, and so it's image was specially crafted to make profit.
But unlike insects, lobster had the advantage of a fresh market. It was only viewed as the food of impoverished immigrants in port cities where it was common.
The vast majority of the market, at least in the USA, considers insects icky to look at our touch, let alone to eat.
More substantially, I think any serious study would find that people's eating habits rarely change based on broad, even minded assessment of future resource limits. Current rates of meat consumption are a good example: we know it can't last, but few people change their diet so that their great grandchildren can eat more chicken.
I do think insects will be a food source in the future, but that will be because a clever marketer discovers the killer bug that is both exotic and delicious. In general I think it will be a very long and slow process by which everyday insects like crickets become palatable to the status quo.