Sam and everyone....   One difference between the paleolithic hunting of
animals and modern animal husbandry is that the number of animals needed to
support a wild hunter is much larger than the number needed to support a
civilized meat eater.  To elaborate, the wild forager takes only a small
percentage of the herd, so the land required to deliver that small
percentage is great in proportion to the meat it produces.  The civilized
carnivore, on the other hand, takes a large percentage of the herd, if not
all of it eventually, so the same amount of land required to feed one wild
carnivore will feed many civilized carnivores.  This is possible because
modern herds are more efficient producers of meat:  there's artificial
insemination requiring fewer bulls, breeding to produce disease resistant
animals that also grow larger on less food, veterinary practices, no wild
predators etc.  Also adding to this efficiency is the fact that domesticated
animals are docile and easy to catch and kill.
     So all in all, I think that our ancestors would have done fine without
planted agriculture, and would have avoided some of the environmental damage
caused by it, if only emissaries from the future had stocked them with our
domesticated breeds of ruminants and the knowledge needed to use them.  I
realize how oversimplified this is, but thought I'd try to quickly get these
ideas posted, as I have little time lately.

B.Lischer