At 16:47 30/07/99 -0500, Ken Green wrote:

>I remember seeing an analysis once that demonstrated that world
>vegetarianism would be far more destructive to the environment than
>carnivory, and far more costly, due to the need to use extensive amounts of
>fertilizer, to destroy native ecosystems, and to ship plant matter (and
>concentrated vitamin extracts) to populations living in areas that can't
>grow the proper variety of plants needed for full health. Unfortunately, I
>don't remember where I saw it. Any of you know of such a study?

I don't know of such a study and would also be very interested in seeing
one. IMO, the following points should also be taken into consideration in
such an analysis:

1. The energy/resources needed to process many vegetarian foods.
Paleofoods, by definition, require very little preparation and are all
edible raw. OK, many people choose to cook at least some of them, but there
is no absolute need to do so.

2. If it is true that paleo eating avoids or eliminates much human illness,
then presumably a large portion of the resources that go into health care,
such as hospitals and other medical and related establishments (e.g., drug
manufacture), would not be needed. I believe that this could be quite a
significant factor, even if direct environmental benefits of producing
paleo foods over vegetarian ones can't be demonstrated. (But I'm not
suggesting that they can't be.)

I think that any economic arguments about paleo vs. vegetarianism should
similarly take these factors into account. It's not just the price you pay
for a certain food item that counts, but also the indirect costs associated
with it.

Barbara