Despite urban sprawl, the fact is that the vast majority of the land in the
>world is still unpopulated with humans.

Agreed - but many of the under- or lightly-populated areas are environments
in which life would be difficult if not impossible:  Antarctica, Northern
Russia and Canada, the deserts of Africa and Australia, rough mountainous
areas and rainforests all come to mind.   As well as being uninviting to
modern man, many of those ecosystems are so delicately balanced that even a
slight increase in population could put them on the road to destruction.
Can you specify exactly where large groups of modern humans could establish
a viable hunter-gatherer existence?  (Serious question, not rhetorical)

>Also, the only thing--the ONLY thing--that has ever been shown to be an
>effective means of population control is the high-tech industrialized
>lifestyle.

Hunter gatherers were subjected to a the most effective means of population
control   Death.  Accidental death, death due to inability (old age, genetic
defects) and death due to natural catastrophe (flood, drought).   That means
of population control is no longer acceptable - we rush injured people to
hospital and support those who demand more of our natural resources than
they are able to contribute.  These practices will not change.  (Perhaps
they should, but to any person who considers themselves able to make a
decision regarding the relative value of another human's life or death, I
would say "set the criteria - and begin the weeding  process with yourself,
your family and your friends".)

>(We are all fabulously wealthy compared to the great bulk of humanity
>throughout history.) The only other thing that seems very effective is, in
>fact, a hunter/gatherer lifestyle, since hunter/gatherer women do not have
>children as quickly as agriculturalist children, for purely biological
>reasons that have little or nothing to do with choice.

If by wealth you mean late-model cars, synthetic clothing, new houses
brimming with furniture, vacations via air-travel, manicured lawns and
gardens of inedible, ornamenal plants - I must disagree.  This is waste of
natural resources , not wealth.  I suggest that "wealth" to a
hunter/gatherer would be materials to build a small shelter and create knife
and spear, a water supply, and a viable ecosystem supporting game and
vegetation for food and clothing.  I intend no offense or insult, but must
ask - if you truly believe in the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of our
ancestors, do you live in a manner which mimics that lifestyle as closely as
possible?  My point is that the most effective method of teaching (and thus
inducing change) is by example.

>The claim that "only intensive farming" can provide enough food for the
>world seems like one that needs very serious questioning, and I'd like to
>see a LOT more support for it.

Although profit margins vary, farmers can sell everything that they produce
whether the product be grain, vegetable, fruit or meat.  Yet millions of
people continue to starve.  If supply met demand, this would not be happening.

 Intensive modern agricultural production is
>DEVASTATING to the environment.  Range-fed meats and gathered foods and
>more sensible and renewable agricultural practices, which also drop cereal
>grains, may well be within the realm of possibility, IF people start
>demanding it.>I don't think it's responsible to assume that agriculture
represents the
>only possible answer, not without more research.  And even if so,
>"agriculture" can be changed.  Throughout most of human history,
>"agriculture" has been synonymous with cereal grains, but it doesn't have
>to be. >
>http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay

Sustainable agriculture already exists.  My small "traditional" breed cows
are efficient foragers which need no grain.  My sheep  (European short-tails
believed to be directly descended from the wild Mouflon) eat small amounts
of grain during the lactation period  - less than half the amount fed to
modern breeds during the same period - because I subvert the natural
selection process (death of the third or fourth lamb in a litter) to meet
demand.  My chickens are lean, free-range traditional breeds.  There *is* a
demand for such products.  But there is appreciably more demand for the huge
steaks and chops of modern livestock breeds - breeds which are for the most
part poor foragers and require grain to thrive - and fatty modern chickens
raised in confinement.  Again I intend no offense but must ask - do you make
the effort to seek out, buy, and thus encourage production of food via
sustainable agricultural techniques?  For example, if you eat 3lbs of beef
per day, it is within your power to create an annual  demand for a farmer
like me to raise three additional cows.  If you establish a buying coop
consisting of twenty people + family members, you have created demand for a
large herd of range-fed cows.

Chris