On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:52:56 -0800, alexs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>Realistically, in terms of global economics, your idealized 100% pure
>>paleo-diet is for the rich only.
>
>Can't deny that. The rich have always eaten better --
>sometimes too much better -- but it's becoming pretty
>clear that Neolithic food = Poverty food.
If you define paleofood with munching as many cows as possible
-then i think so.
If you try to achieve a nutrition wich a main percentage (of calories and
protein) of vegetables , tubers, roots, fruit, it will be expensive too.
But production possibilities are much better than for the more inefficient
animal husbandry - it may *become* cheaper.

The neolithic revolution of the years 12000bc to 4000bc is one
successful attempt to establish a well functioning nutrition in a
not-so-well functionating mesolithic society.
IMO its not neolithic=poverty but other way round.
Only cheap food production nourish people which are poor.
Meat- industry serves little or nothing to poor.
Simplest grain production serves a minimum to poor.

>..The only way that many
>people are going to eat Paleo is for there to be fewer humans.
>Adding more humans just dilutes quality of life for all life.

I understand your "complaining" or anger, that we are now so much
on the planet, and you see the abundance of available food as the culprit.
My impression is: on any food supply, paleo - meso or neo- lithic
people tend to overpopulate.
Overpopulate until something stops them. Starving - or other environmental
desasters (like mammouth dying out).
Native americans (Sioux) had horses for about 500 years, to exploit
the enormous bison-herds.
They were *still* flourishing 100 years ago.

>I believed this before I became a parent, and am sure of it
>now as well. Paleo paradise probably has 1 million people on
>this planet. George Hayduke knows whereof I speak.
>And I believe too that widespread Paleo WOL/WOE is sustainable
>only when human population is low and stays low. ...

But now, as we *are* so many what, should we do. There's no desireable
way how the count of humans could decrease. Everything, famine or diseases
would be a desaster. Birth control is too late.
The only option is to face the challenge, and think over a way of
nutrition that fits the demands for health and is sustainable for
our planet. In my opinion.

Amadeus S.