Amadeus Schmidt wrote:
> >There arent many herbivores on this planet that arent easy to hunt.
>
> I suppose you mean with a rifle and a car.
> Probably with only an all wood spear and on foot it would be more difficult
> to hunt a gazelle or bison.

difficult, but not imposible - I am not suggesting we start doing so.
evidence suggests neaderthals hunted mammoth with nothing more than
crude spears.

>
> I found it interesting to read aboriginals hunting kangaroo when they are
> lazing around in the mid-day heat.
> That's really an advantage of the human cooling system and of the bigger
> redundant brain. It allows activity in the hot hours.

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

> Of course this allows hunting as well as gathering activity in security from
> the predators which are active in cooler hours.
>
> >> Somehow the aboriginal culture wase cute enough to limit it's own
> >>population
> >> count to numbers which were bearable for the land.
> >> Whithout hunting all kangaroos to extinction.
> >
> >With regard to this, I would respond that in general Australia is not
> >all that inhabitable - large areas of desert. That is to say it is less
> >inhabitable by humans, but not so many of our native animals. I am not
> >so surer it was as much a result of environmentally concerned hunting ..
>
> I've read that aboriginals also had a carefully planned child production.
> Also by little surgical interventions.

this planned childbirth mostly centred around knowing blood
relationships
to prevent inbreeding. They had (as a generalisation) meticulous and
complex
concepts of family structure to avoid such things.


> In the famous book from the woman walking around in the bush for some time
> with aboriginals (title?) she mentiones that one tribe decided to commit
> "tribe suicide" - by not having any more children.

There is the possibility that it was not possible due to blood ties.


> 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. Tourists who travel into the bush are often
caught
out by just how harsh the environment is. Our native wildlife has
adapted to it.
They have been here for thousands of years longer than any humans. One
of the specific advantages the kangaroo has is that it can travel
enormous
distances in one day - far more than a human. They are lazy by nature,
but
when they have need to they can really move.

> Normally it is the case for predators, that they multiply until they reach a
> number, proportional to the prey. The limit is only the prey count - how
> many are huntable by the predators.

I would agree with this in principal but Australia seems to be somewhat
of an exception.
The unique wildlife we have here is testament to it. I think the
thing which may be affecting your take on this is the estimates
of Aboriginal population before white settlement. 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.

> 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 :)


> A nice description I've found about aboriginal hunting and gathering at
> http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/Aborigines.html
> Without amounts.
> Could you cite some actual accounts, in times of drought and normally?

I wish I could provide you with exact figures. My experience with
this is that particular parts of the animal were eaten, and
it was a hunt as necessary proposition.


> >... but seemingly unlimited kangaroos, just hunt more.
>
> seemingly unlimited.. But what limited the human hunting?

Probably the same factors that limited nomadic hunter gatherer
people anywhere else. Nomadic lifestyle does not lend itself to
large populations. Population on this planet did not grow at
anything like current rates before agriculture. Even today
kangaroo and wallaby population is huge. An airfield in queensland
had to be closed, awaiting construction of a perimiter fence,
since they have overrun the area - they mingle amongst the houses
and buildings and people, seemingly unconcerned. You only have
to go about 30 minutes out of Melbourne(which is a big city) by car
 and you are likely to see them.

> This is logical as the bones respond to forces in growing.
> However I think you can be shure that modern athletes take the acid load
> into account by adding massive calcium supplements and dairy.
> Even very high protein eating athletes will not fall into ketosis, like
> many paleolisters eating a northern ice age diet use to do.
> What's the average age of strength athletes you have in mind?

I think the age cap here would be around 35. The study cited (by someone
else in MFW) was of olympic weightlifters. This is just a guess at
the competitive career length.

> Probably rather young. Bone loss normally starts at about 40.

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

> Let's see how the bones remain after the age of 60 on the same diet.

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

I think that weight bearing exercise would have to contribute a great
deal
to bone density.

John McKenzie

--
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost [log in to unmask]