> >In a perfect world everyone would have a limitless food budget.
> >Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.

> if it is your definition of a perfect world, so occidentals rich
countries...

I'm sorry your English was a little hard for me to understand here,
jean-claude, but in general I am very surprised that anyone would try to
disagree with my statements above.

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.

Paleo worked for "everyone" in paleolithic times because humans were not
very numerous. Also there were greater numbers and species of animals before
we, according to one theory, hunted them all into extinction.

As wonderful as paleo eating may be, it is not a practical solution to the
world's food shortage, especially if we adopt a 100% purist attitude such as
yours in which any intervention into the natural order of things should be
avoided.

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. I saw a news segment the other day, for example, about a
company that had created a strain of genetically altered salmon. The new
strain grows much larger on the *same amount of food*. This altered strain
of salmon is more efficient in its metabolism. The fish places a lower
burden on its environment on a per pound basis and thus represents a better
utilization of our fish-farming resources. Such a fish would quite obviously
bring down the price and help with any effort to promote fish consumption in
place of consumption of non-paleo foods, but purists like yourself and
anti-biotech activists are already trying to block this development.

Realistically, in terms of global economics, your idealized 100% pure
paleo-diet is for the rich only.

-gts



> are giving a perfect life to its inhabitant, because in comparaison with
the
> rest of world  the consomation of energy by their inhabitant is
tremendously
> higher than the por peoples in the world.
> in my opinion a bigger budget is an obstacle to find a healthy place in
the
> ecosystem, it is the waste of energy spent in "making "silly responses to
> true needs ,it is the waste of energy spent at making the food cheap ( so
> real needs are unsatisfied and create needs for more) .
> 1 .70 dolar in proportion of an occidental income is very small in
> comparaison of what a dozen of eggs will cost to the budget of an
inhabitant
> of india for ex..
>  food Prices are made  artificialy low  for business purposes and don't
> represent the real cost of energy , ecologically speaking.
> to be able to produce commercial  eggs at low  price , the misuse and the
> detourning of precious natural ressources is necessarry .
> we wil be better off , ( truely richer) if food had its real cost in term
of
> energy,  truely represented by the price.
>
> in a perfect world like it is  in a natural ecosystem, the energy
potential
> is allways extending, for the simple reason that the sun energy is
reaching
> the earth every day leading to an increase in biomass. only human
> interference by wrecking the natural distribution of energy is succeding
at
> a global " desertification" where the total biomass is diminishing
> impoverished (more humans but less of everything else, and because we
don't
> live from bread alone , this diminution of  the diversity of the species
who
> support   , directly or indirectly, our existence is dramatic.
> i will rather pay "high price " for eggs but having the natural ecosystem
> necessarry to support the healthy existence of the chickens who produce
them
> . And chickens need lot of space to forage .
>
> jean-claude
>
>
>
>  I am not absolutist or
> >elitist in my paleo-diet thinking and so I am free to consider some basic
> >economics when thinking about food and nutrition.
>