David Williams wrote:when the world as we know it ends, 2 people left alive, 1 with $1, the other with a pumpkin seed, who is the richer man ?
rose macaskie wrote:marina jade. You talk of not growing saffron because it doesn't have any calories, i can't remember what they are but it has qualities that reduce illness, i think cancer. The more people produce azafran the lower the price of this healthy product.
Jason Hernandez wrote:What is the connection between these disparate quotes?
Jason Hernandez wrote:Can sustainable income and a sustainable planet coexist?
1. Local people are relying on luxury crops to maintain local economies
2. Local people need to get their calories from somewhere
is answered for those growers. This is a country by country thing it seems to me and we should also recognize that there needs to be a reduction in human population for the survival of the planet, so maybe it's ok for those folks to end up however they end up.
Calories are necessary. The anticarcinogenic properties of saffron, the antioxidants in dark chocolate or green tea -- none of these will sustain life unless the person first gets enough basic calories.
Jason Hernandez wrote:Anyone have thoughts about this? Can sustainable income and a sustainable planet coexist?
Bryant RedHawk wrote:
There are places right now that you can see those who used to destroy nature, now working to rebuild it because they have found that westerners will pay them to come and see the wildlife in it's natural habitat and that provides these previous destroyers with better income than their old ways.
It will be a long, hard road to walk but we can do this, as long as we don't get discouraged or quit.