The question is simply this: if agriculture is
responsible for the
population explosion that has occurred on earth over the past 10,000 years,
is
there any
possible way that any significant portion of the human population could now
be
sustained by a
diet based on animal protein, let alone the entire human race?

the answer is simple the paelo diet will be responsible for a regulation of
the human population . more foods is available and more humans will be born
. with animals based diet the number of birth will decrease ( especially
when you know how disruptive grains are on the hormonal balance leading to a
state of exitation of endogen origin .( chickens are given grains to makes
them produce more eggs due to the hormonal unbalance they create )
i don't know about cooked paleo but a raw paleo diet normalise sexual
appetite . you don't look for sex as a means to calm down this edogenous
exitation of the nervous system .

for the comparaison between surface of lands necessarry for animal
production compared to plant production they are based on false  assumptions
( grain fed animals) and are not to be applied to sound  diet and farming
practices

surface of land means nothing , in a monoculture of grains or animals  you
have to take in accompt the lost of fertility and in biodiversity ( that
need to be compensated by more land to produce foods that will be present
overwise on that land )

farms who mimic natural biodiversity ( 3 dimensional with trees )  can
produce way more foods per acreage than can be obtained with monoculture (
the simple association of fruit or nuts trees with pastures undeneath  for
ex )

 In the same pasture you can have herbivors and fowls , or fruit trees
supporting vines like kiwi or grapes with rabbits or fowl living underneath
, or a chestnut grove with wild boars , a pond can feed fishes and ducks
etc....

also a natural farm is supporting lot of wild life that can be hunted and
harvested .


<It seems to me that we couldn't possibly produce enough healthy meat to
feed
the world's
current population. >

if the meat is only from big mammals ,for sure , but a paleo diet is not
limited to muscles from big mammals, chickens roaming free on a natural farm
for ex can feed themselves

as far i can see because it is not so easy and profitable to feed peoples on
a paleo diet than it is on grains , we will have to farm very differently
than we do , we will have to create biodiverses edible ecosytems that can
take care of themselves and of the peoples who live in it .
very different pictures than  centralised food production by few industrial
farmers  to be transported far away to where peoples live .( obliging to
select very few species and varieties )


<After all, look at the abuses found in the meatpacking
industry which are
propagated by a system which is designed to maximize production and minimize
costs.>

it is time to realise that farming of animals have turned that way not to
produce more food per acreage ( because it doesn't when compared with even
traditional farms )  but for few to control a market and are purelly
economical choices to create consumers of empty calories .  the industry is
not there to nourish peoples but to makes profits.




< How on earth (or in God's name!)
could we ever feed
the world a natural diet with today's population, that is, assuming you
could
even somehow
persuade or compel the entrenched agricultural interests to go along with
it?>

a natural diet is incompatible with agricultural interests , the logic of
the industry is to produce a lot of unnourishing "foods" (so they can sell
more of it .) to  use up centuries of fertility in a very short term .
so i hope the paleofood movement to be the motor of a change to not regard
lands anymore as means of production of profits but as pleasant place to
live and so to feed their inhabitants .

the model of human settlements that can promote that is the ecovillage
concept . the ancient model of farm lands feeding cities have to disapear .

jean-claude