On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 05:07:53 -0800, Jennifer Dube'
<[log in to unmask]> wrote.

Jen, I read your thoughtful post and generally agree with it.
In Prof Cordains new website FAQ (at which I would have some
objections to raise at other points) he acknowledges
that the paleo lifestyle - as it is practised by most
with a heavy meat base - is only possible for a minority of the billions
on earth.

However corn and wheat isn't the only thing which agriculture can grow.
I mean as far corn and wheat is considered as "unpaleo" - which is a good
allergy-preventing strategy but can be applied to corn/wheat eating
lifestock as well.
A lot of other crops can be grown , with less allergy problems,
abundance of minerals and vitamins, protein, fiber, what you want.

I compared the per-hectar yield of various crops as far as I could get
some numbers. And I found that a lot of crops have almost the same yield
as a field of corn. I recall bananas, almonds or carrots for example.
I took the yield per acre of bananas or almonds and computed
the calories and protein in them. And found that per area it's very
comparable to the "ordinary" animal fodder crop.

Carrots have little protein per weight, but the yield is 10-fold over the
yield of spelt or einkorn. Similar it was with bananas.
(in this computations I didn't account for "modern" chemical wheat
production techniques - this would yield the 4-fold as otherwise)

Therefore it *is* possible to grow enough paleo food, nearly as much
as today.

The problem is only that so much is wasted if we delivered the bananas (like
wheat) to factory farms to feed cattle. Which shit 90% on the ground.

Opting for more fruit trees.

regards

Amadeus










>The biggest problem is that, healthy or not, I venture
>to guess that everyone on this list, and the vast
>majority of the world's (over)population, is part of
>an agricultural society. We might choose to eat foods
>that resemble those that paleo people ate, but they
>aren't paleo foods, not really. Someone, somewhere,
>grew or raised them (anyone who truly does hunt/gather
>every morsel of food, I apologize). So a large
>percentage of our food choices are academic.
>
>We have neolithic family structures, generally have
>one residence instead of being nomadic, reproduce
>quickly (without birth control). We thrive on the
>fruits of agrarian society, even though we shun some
>very few elements of it. If, tomorrow, the
>agricultural system was destroyed, we would all
>starve, yes, even the enlightened paleo eaters. Our
>planet cannot sustain the population that it has
>without agriculture. And agriculture is destroying it.
>
>Do I wish the masses would buy all the "bad food" and
>leave the good stuff for me? Not really - it would be
>great if everyone would finally realize that white
>flour & sugar are killing them and stop it. It would
>also be great if flour weren't on sale for .59/5lb
>this week, once again reopening the wound of my inner
>angst and struggle over this way of eating. I wish
>people would realize that corn is killing them & quit
>eating it. Corn is the ultimate antithesis of paleo
>principles - did you know that it absolutely literally
>cannot reproduce & reseed without human aid? But if
>corn production ceased tomorrow, what would our
>precious animals eat (and what would we make glue out
>of, or plastic, or medicine, ad nauseum)? The fields
>that corn is grown on would have to lie fallow for up
>to 12 years in order to have enough nutrients to grow
>so much as a blade of grass, if they ever recovered
>from the herbicides & pesticides that continue to be
>pumped into them.
>
>People would have to die. That is a stark statement,
>and it takes a harsh academic mind to consider that
>that might not be such a bad thing. In my secret
>heart, I listen to every report of an earthquake, or
>mudslide, or hurricane killing people with the sure
>knowledge that the earth is "angry", that people are
>dying because we have too many mouths to feed, even if
>starvation isn't the direct cause. But at the same
>time, if it was my family dying, I wouldn't be able to
>be quite as callous about it. I'm not sure anyone
>could.
>
>What it boils down to is this. Paleo eaters have the
>luxury to choose to eat "paleo" ***only*** because
>their numbers are few.
>
>Jen in NC
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
>http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/