On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:10:38 -0500 gordon <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> Hunger and famine are still major problems on this planet

Ardeith writes:
And will continue to be problems as long as our population
is greater than the ability of the land to support......and as
long as people cannot move away from areas where current
conditions....such as drought....cause scarcity.....which
people cannot do as there are little invisible lines
drawn all over the world that people are not allowed to
cross freely, whether there is a drought or not..................

Gordon wrote:
> As wonderful as paleo eating may be, it is not a practical solution
> to the world's food shortage

Ardeith writes:
The only "practical solution to the world's food shortage" is
fewer people.............there's plenty of food......there are just
too many people...................

Gordon wrote:
If there is any hope for spreading paleo globally in such a way that
the poor can afford it

Ardeith writes:
There isn't..........corn, cornmeal, cornmeal mush, rice,
grain products in all their many forms.....these are the
foods of the world's poor......I once had a debate
with someone who thought all the grains fed to beef
cattle and pigs would be better used to feed the poor.
He became very upset when I suggested that the
more rational solution would be to cut back on the
number of people in the world so that there would
be enough good healthy food for those who were
left walking about..........said I was a heartless
version of a female dog...........maybe so.....but I'll
support sending food to relieve a famine, when
that food is laced with contraceptives!   I don't
want to see any more pictures of starving babies!
I want to see babies conceived only when the
parents can assure they will be adequately fed
and cared for...........feeding a famine only fuels
the next famine because you are artificially
sustaining a population in a place where the
land cannot support the current population
much less the additional population they will
generate..............

Gordon wrote:
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

Ardeith writes:
Want to bet?  I thought pond-raised shrimp would be more
eco-friendly than shrimp harvested in the usual way.....they
drag nets across an area of sea floor and destroy much of
the plant foods sea creatures need....then they haul the
nets aboard a boat and throw back 10 to 15 pounds of
dead fish, shellfish, etc for every pound of shrimp they
keep.......so..... I thought pond-raised shrimp would be a
good source of shrimp that didn't destroy so much other
life in the harvesting........but cheaper?  No way!  Pond
raised shrimp cost at least twice as much per pound
as shrimp taken with drag nets.   Not because it cost
more to harvest them.....no....a pond-shrimp farmer
doesn't have to pay the cost of a boat, nets, crew,
maintenance, etc .....he would have to pay the cost
of the land.....on the water, of course......and his
"ponds".....which in the pictures I've seen aren't
really ponds but barriers that keep the shrimp
in the salt water but unable to swim away....net's
maybe.......I really believe they ask such high
prices just because they can........people will pay
it because they perceive it as better for the
environment of the ocean floor..............

So don't for a minute imagine that such genetically
altered salmon would be cheaper to buy......I'll believe
that one when I see it.......the fish farmers will reason
that people will pay X dollars per pound for the
other salmon, so they will pay the same amount for
my salmon, even if he has less expense in the raising
of his salmon, he's goint to want the going rate for
salmon............................

Gordon wrote:
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.

Ardeith writes:
I wouldn't want to block such a development.....I just want
someone to prove to me that such alterations in our foods
will be safe to feed my grandchildren and their children.
And I don't believe they have done sufficient research over
a long enough time to prove this.    All over the world,
folks are jumping on the genetic engineering bandwagon,
and I don't believe they anymore know what they are
doing to the bio-diversity of life on this planet than the
early settlers knew what introducing rabbits to Australia
would do.............Bio-diversity may turn out to be the
only thing between life-as-we-know-it and the extinction
of humans as a species.......we don't really know what's
out there in those jungles and forests, but we're cutting
them down right and left.........so, recently.....in geologic
terms.....recently someone discovered a tree bark that
had beneficial effects on some disease or other............
how fortunate we are that some loggers had not already
logged out the area and cut down all those kind of trees...
..........besides being homes for some other creatures
besides humans.....what else is being destroyed in the
whole process of resource harvesting?  Who is looking
ahead seven generations and thinking about what
our great-great-great-grandchildren will inherit?

[log in to unmask]
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.