>
>
> After we get most of the world eating the basics we can worry about
> maximal quality diets.
>
> You apparently misunderstand me. I was talking about the biggest problem
>
> facing the Paleo diet, not the problem of feeding the world by any means
>
> necessary. I'm not saying there is not enough food to feed the world's
>
> population, I'm saying there are not enough Paleo foods for the world's
>
> population to eat anywhere near a Paleo diet.



Since my consumption of true paleo foods is fairly low, and mostly stuff I
pick myself or get from hunters, I don't worry about the prices of them
much. I am concerned with the supermarket foods my family usually eats,
which I try to keep paleo is some sense of the word. I will probably get
around to looking for grass-fed meats one of these days, but have not yet. I
don't eat much wild fish either, or any kind of fish. Anyway, finding
grass-fed meat is getting easier, not harder, as the market is beginning to
appear to support farmers trying to produce it.

The kinds of foods I eat are cheap. I spend less now than I did before
paleo, because I eat out a lot less and eat less expensive junk food, soda
etc.

These kinds of foods are cheap, and getting cheaper. Meat, fruit and
vegetables. If nuts get wildly popular they will go up in price for a while,
then fall again as new production comes to the market.

If people were to change to my kind of diet, there would be a short term but
no long-term problem of rising food prices, because the food is mostly
farm-raised. Very few people try to eat purely wild food. Unless you own a
good bit of land it would be pretty hard, and expensive. I am not arguing
that if we all tried to eat wild foods there would not be a shortage. I am
arguing that most of us will never try to eat all wild food. Only fanatics
will, no matter how healthy it is. So price pressure on wild foods will not
be a problem for any but those few fanatics.

Interesting factoid, in the US at least, the middle class tends to outlive
the rich. Don't know why, nor recall by how much.

Personally, I think we are seeing lots of changes towards the right
direction. Farming is taking up a lot less land now than it used to, so
marginal lands are no longer being put under the plow like they were in
1900. Hilly and poorer croplands are returning to grass and trees.

I have been thinking recently that even the expansion of masses of people
into former crop lands is not the terrible thing I used to think it was. I
live just outside of convenient driving range from Chicago, and we have lots
of people moving out here to get their little piece of the countryside. It
is funny, but when people take farmland, build houses on it and live on it,
the wildlife in the area explodes. People LIKE animals and trees. What was
barren monoculture cropland is quickly transformed into what amounts to
mixed forest and meadow. When I was living here as a boy, we rarely saw even
deer, never turkeys, coyotes. Now, I hardly bother to mention I saw a flock
of turkeys. I have neighbors who hunt deer in their back yards.

My neighbors are claiming to have seen cougers and bears in Illinois, where
these have been extinct for 150 years. Would not surprise me if it were
true. Might even be a few wolves about, according to the State Wildlife
boys. If so they are still keeping pretty quiet.

(By the way, if any of you want to buy 23 acres of woodlands, my Dad is
talking about selling. The bear mentioned above was there, and one of the
couger sightings.)

Sorry, I got to wandering about off topic. One last note, the 'Tom'  Philip
quoted from the 2002 post was me, writing from Japan.