> Most commonly in fact it is
> argued that agriculturalists
> have more food security, hence are more affluent,
> than H-Gs.  Yet H-Gs
> had/have low birth rates, while primitive
> agriculturalists had/ have higher
> birth rates; suggesting that the key factor is not
> affluence (having food
> security or 'stuff'), but nutritional (protein vs.
> carbohydrate).

Another angle - the farmer becomes more successful as
his family's size increases producing more labor
(farmhands). The bigger the family, the bigger the
farm. Whereas an increase in a h-g's family size could
be a burden depending on available resources.

I used to live and work, during my high school
summers, in a very small town in central Idaho. Free
ranging cattle was a common sight on the ranch lands
in that area. One observation from this - there's
literally millions of acres of viable land that could
be used for grazing that would never be able to
support agriculture. The land used for grazing seemed
to be pretty much self-sustaining -- the only "work"
the ranchers did was provide a constant supply of
irrigation water to keep the wild grasses and scrub
green for the cattle (and some sheep). A very idyllic
existence indeed.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/