On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 13:34:27 +1100, John McKenzie <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>evidence suggests neaderthals hunted mammoth with nothing more than
>crude spears.

Before about 40,000 bc crude spears and small stone blades were the hunt
weapons . No bows and arrows, no nets, no fishhooks.
Though Auel in his neanderthal book describes nets and stone slings (which
both are undetectable in the fossil record).
This suggests neanderthals hunted by directly approaching the mammoth with a
spear (not throwing). Neanderthals were more musculous than our trait, but
can you imagine approaching a mammoth with only a wooden spear?
I can imagine hunting occasions with prepared pits or fire and seperating
(like Auel described a mammoth hunt).
But I think this can't be a frequent occupation.
It's just the only food which has left traces to us (the bones).

On a steppe or open grassland with a herd of bisons (mammoth, whatever) the
main problem should be just to come close to them.
Gnu's or Zebras are more precautious thane the kangaroo as you describe
(evolved without predators).

>you would be amazed how easy it is to get close to a kangaroo.

I hope I'll have the chance to do so one time
(not to spear it, to just enjoy looking at it).

> They had (as a generalisation) meticulous and
>complex
>concepts of family structure to avoid such things.

Long term thinking.

>> You mean, the outback is so harsh for humans to survive, that humans
>> couldn't threaten the kangaroo population too much?
>
>In this case yes. Well prepared and equipped trekkers go missing and die
>in the Australian outback.

In the presence of enough kangaroos there should be food enough
(provided that they ate only some fatty parts).
So the main bottleneck would be water, I suppose.
This is not a joke: Is blood a satisfying drink?
Or maybe the kangaroos aren't so many to survive on them.

> From memory you
>quoted a figure of 2 million? I doubt it big time. I don't have
>any other firugre to compare it to, but think that 10% of this figure
>might even be too high.

I recall an estimation a long time ago of 1 or 2 million.
If there's a rest of 170,000 today which live in the outback then in the
denser populated coastal regions should have lived many more to add.

>> Maybe you'll approach some limit after Europeans start to eat kangaroo
now
>> - well in fear of BSE.
>
>Maybe but I doubt it - our beef exports would probably rise rather
>than some exotic meat. This topic is for an economics list though :)

I think Argentinian beef gained some popularity here. But this beef is also
raised by power fedder in farm houses. Possibly also with "animal flour",
which is held responsible as the cause. Unbelievable amounts of "animal
flour" have been fed to animals. And after the ban it has been exported to
foreign countries, far far away. Also in America there's a form of "wild
game" BSE. In animals fed with "animal flour". ...
Beef is distrusted generally.
This is why people now eat kangaroo, ostrich, shark, even crocodile.

> Population on this planet did not grow at
>anything like current rates before agriculture.

If you look at a graphic, then the numbers have been relative constant until
the middle ages, about 1200 AD. 5000 years of agriculture didn't change so
much. Why did it boost so astronimically after 1400?
Medicine? Political stability? Maybe just more aggressive food production.

>If you have higher bone density than others when you hit 40
>it would have to be an advantage.

Definitely.

>The things that give you the highest bone density, will
>probably help maintain it.

If you proceed the training in the years up to 60,70 it will certainly help
the bones.
How much better would be to do strength training for strong bones
*without* calcium loss by large dose protein.

Regards, Amadeus S.