On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:28:22 -0600, Robert Kesterson <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:
 
>... I wasn't aware truffles were this pricey -- probably because I don't 
eat
>them.  Which is exactly my point.  If grass-fed beef were $1500/kg, I
>wouldn't eat it either.

I guess I'm not communicating some of my points well. The point of the 
truffles example was to show that people will steal and even kill when a 
food becomes valuable enough. As I said before, it's an extreme example, 
but if Cordain's estimate of Paleo-food carrying capacity is correct, 
things could become quite extreme at some point in the future if much of 
the world learns about Paleolithic nutrition.

-----------------

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:03:45 -0700, [log in to unmask] wrote:

>The other side of the supply and demand equation is that, given high 
prices, a multitude of suppliers will suddenly appear, thus driving the 
price back down. ....

By saying that Paleo foods can only support up to 600 million people 
(possibly fewer), Cordain is indicating that there are limits to how much 
the supply of Paleo foods can be increased. If you have information to the 
contrary I would love to see it. It would certainly make my day if someone 
devised a way to feed 6.5 billion people (or even 1 billion) on Paleo 
foods without exhausting the supply.

-----------------

It's neat to see all the discussion this topic produced. It pays to use a 
pot-stirring subject title. :-) 

The greenhouse and co-ops are good suggestions, folks. They are 
unfortunately not doable for me right now, as I own no land (not even a 
yard) and there is no co-op in my area, but they are workable for many 
people who are willing and able to put the time into it. Given the health 
benefits and potential future cost savings, it would be worthwhile.