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.