(11-17-2011, 09:01 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: The use of limited resource fossil fuels to transport it to consumers would be the non-sustainable factor here.
Not disagreeing that it is a sustainable source. A lot of "sustainably" raised crops require just as much fossil fuel to work the land and harvest. Luckily, biodiesel (not to be confused with ethanol) is becoming much more of a possibility, and it is a completely renewable source of fuel (though not enough to support the entire world's fuel needs).
As far as the sustainable food movement goes, the general sentiment is the more local the better. Less packaging, less fuel cost, and directly supportive of local community which shares sustainability with its members.
True. So the total costs etc. would have to be weighed out.
In the case of bluegreen algae, it's such a powerful food - supplying the trace elements missing in the SAD diet - that its benefits far outweigh the costs of transport. A powerhouse compacted into a tiny space! A single gram a day can overcome many nutritional deficiencies.
And the only cost is harvesting, marketing and delivering. It grows wild so there's no manufacturing cost incurred.
I was thinking in terms of what crops do to the ecosystem, by depleting the soil, requiring pest control, etc. Wild foods in their natural habitat are much more sustainable in that sense.
(11-17-2011, 09:08 PM)abridgetoofar Wrote: Jesus was high 4d (harvestable to 5d), and his last lesson that he imparted on his followers was to lower their weapons and allow for his persecutors to torture and kill him.
Yes, that was his own sacrifice. He chose it. He did it willingly.