My question concerns your thesis regarding food production and population growth. If you are right, and I rather think you are, then a human community should not grow beyond its ability to subsist on locally produced food sources. My question is this: how do we define local? I would like to define local ecologically in terms of "bioregions." For example, my bioregion, northern Canada, produces no bananas, oranges, grapes, etc. But it does produce very good raspberries. So my fruit diet should consist of raspberries. And if I recover a bit of old wisdom I could learn how to preserve a variety of rasberry products for use over the winter. This makes perfect sense to me, although in an era of global trade it does limit my food choices. Still, ecologically this makes sense to me. So the second question is this: Do you think the ideas of global trade and competitive advantage (not to mention cheap oil) have led us to an artificial understanding of things like food production? Is this one more source of our disconnectedness with natural processes? If I am understanding you correctly then the modern "supermarket" is a disturbing place, but the local "farmers market" is to be supported and encouraged. I would be interested in your response. • Ishmael.org, the work & philosophy of Daniel Quinn