>Hunger and famine are still major problems on this planet and the problem
>would grow by several orders of magnitude if all humans were forced to
>pursue a purely paleo WOE.

From one point of view and by certain moral standards, I suppose
that hunger and famine are considered the problem. Another way
to look at it: too many people, made possible by excessive birth
rate, is the real problem. Hunger and famine are just the symptoms.

As for for "forced to pursue a purely paleo WOE", this is a
ridiculous straw man tactic. When unrealistic extremes are
brought to play, silly conclusions come out. GIGO.

>If there is any hope for spreading paleo globally in such a way that the
>poor can afford it then it is likely going to be through the use of genetic
>engineering.

Oh, sure, just like dumping gasoline on a fire is going to
put it out. More and more food, better distribution of existing
supplies, or even "better" food, is only going to make the
problem worse without an underlying reduction in poverty
and/or changes in culture.

The direct inverse correlation between better education/access
to contraception and lower birth rate has been observed for some
time, and either accepted or rejected repending on who's leading
a given society.

How about genetically engineering humans so they don't
breed year-round? The Australian aborigines practiced
(maybe still do) penile subincision as a fertility-reduction
method; western society has more refined surgical and
chemical methods. So the means of avoiding excess humanity
have been available for a long time, across all cultures.
And of course there's always war & murder. But other agendas
always seem to dictate, "Breed, breed."

Don't want to belabor points wholly off-topic, but
saying that biotech is gonna save humanity's collective
ass by reducing hunger is really, really stupid. It's incredible
that some people still spout this rubbish.

>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. One creates
the other, in a way. Too much bad food leads to a population
that is too numerous and chronically ill. 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 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. Enthusiastic
as I am for eating Paleo, I don't proselytise because I know
it's not only annoying to others, but also unsustainable for
large numbers. The whole meat industry is not going to go
range-fed/finished overnight, and cattle ranching does enough
eco-damage as it is.