On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:29:49 -0700, Ken Stuart <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>There is also the claim that agriculture is less environmental, because it
>is
>unbalanced

I'm not quite shure what this has to do with plant vs animal agriculture..

As far as you mean all agriculture vs. hunter and gatherer the neolithic
agriculture (the old one - we dont't live any longer in a lith(stone)-age)
certainly it is as balanced a living in nature. Everything in both ways of
living goes round in a circle -  totally recycled.

Modern chemical agriculture is unbalanced in many aspects:
- fertilization brings in  extern substances continuously
- some cultures (maize) increase erosion,therefore loose soil
- soil becomes mineral depleted, with an end in sight
- farming requires more energy put in as taken out

These unbalancedness however can be overcome in modern organic farming for
both, plants and livestock.

> and allows ever increasing human population (cf Daniel Quinn).

This is  a major problem of today and
I couldn't say something against.

Hunting gathering populatons had a low limitation to the population, they
couldn't become so many. Low limit, mostly because of resources I think.

Farming populations have a ...higher limit to the population.
Farming populations won't increase forever. They have a limit in the
available resources too. The limit is just higher as for huntergatherers.
And about to be reached in the near future.

Cheers

Amadeus