From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 23 2003 - 11:43:25 MDT
gts wrote,
> This makes sense to me at first glance. But then I have to wonder
> about your basic assumption: why do you suppose is it good to
> expand human civilization, if expanding civilization means we
> will have more mouths to feed with poorer quality nutrition?
> Why would it not it be better to have fewer but healthier humans?
Humans are great and technology is great: Therefore I want more of a good
thing!
I still dispute this spurious claim that humans are less healthier than in
former times. I much rather live my life today with such a long life-span
and modern medicine than in earlier times where I would probably die in my
20's and have no access to health care.
> It should be an accepted fact here by now (I hope, after all the
> posts I've written about the subject) that agricultural products
> rank very poorly on a nutrients/calorie scale. Bread, milk,
> cheese and pasta taste great, and these foods certainly help
> us to feed the starving masses in this over-populated world,
> but otherwise these foodstuffs have little to offer to humanity.
Just because you keep repeating this over and over does not make it so. A
lot of people still dispute this faith-based theory that paleodiets are
best.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2003 - 11:56:06 MDT