> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paleolithic Eating Support List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jim Swayze
> Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 8:38 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Letter From New Scientist Magazine
> 
> > massive population
> > reduction, which even in the most optimistic scenarios will take
> > far longer
> > to achieve than our lifetimes
> 
> Ooh, I'm not a big fan of the word choices.  Ending the lives of
> millions of people would never be an "achievement."

Good heavens! Jim, please don't associate me with such words as "ending the
lives of millions." I would never want someone to get the wrong impression
that I would ever contemplate that and I tried to be careful to point that
out in part of my post that you may have missed:

"Even massive wars (which no reasonable person would advocate)...."

I meant things that rational people would consider, such as freely choosing
to have fewer children and birth control and whatever other constructive
ideas we can come up with--not insane slaughter of millions of people, which
I utterly condemn and denounce. When population reduction is discussed, its
prominent advocates like Daniel Quinn are not talking about murdering
people, they are talking about more sane options. Quinn seems about as
peaceful as a person can be. 

Still, since there is in the media today a lot of hot rhetoric and
misrepresentation of people's views on population control, I can imagine how
someone could misconstrue what I said. I'll try to be even more clear about
what I mean regarding voluntary population reduction/control in the future.
Overpopulation and environmental degradation are probably the two biggest
long-term challenges the human species faces, so it is something that will
probably be discussed more and more in the future and I'll probably get more
chances to refine my wording.

> 
> This is an interesting conversation.  We're having a similar one over
> on my Yellowstone list regarding bison.  Animal rights activists are
> understandably freaking out about slaughter of buffalo by state
> agencies and the cattle industry in and around the Park.  I asked a
> question about the natural carrying capacity for bison in the
> Yellowstone ecosystem while making the point that man is not a
> spectator on this earth but is a vital cog.
> 
> Jim

Good question. I'll bet it upset the animal rights activists. It's also a
dilemma for us Paleo food advocates. Wild animal meat and organs is probably
the healthiest food on the planet for human beings, but the planet is not
large enough to house all the bison, caribou, deer, grass-fed cattle, wild
salmon, etc. we would need to feed everyone (we would need about 70
earth-like planets to do that). Outside of population control, the only
suggestion I recall seeing so far is Ray Audette's suggestion to find a way
to farm termites, which could provide healthy-fat-bearing "meat" to a larger
number of people if someone could figure out a way to do it. As with any
human manipulation of nature, I'm sure there would be downsides, of course.
We have some very smart people here. Maybe we can come up with some more
ideas. Forgive me if I've missed or forgotten any.

Geoffrey Purcell wrote <<As regards the shooting of bison and wolves in the
US or the shooting of badgers in the UK, all these methods re "managing
wildlife" are done for the benefit of humans not of the local ecosystem,
really. Things work far better when one lets Nature take its course. For
example, there has been some encouraging common sense in the UK re the
notion of reintroducing wolves and bear back into the UK, among many others
previously wiped out by humans "managing" the wild.>>

Yes, but of course, one reason why they are "managing the wildlife" is that
there are not enough natural predators to control the bison--probably
because the local people oppose the reintroduction of more predators like
wolves. So, until they can convince people to support predator
reintroduction (how many people with children want wolves venturing every
now and then into their backyards?) the only options are hunting,
"managing," letting the bison starve, or letting the bison trample down
villages and force out the humans. :-) I wonder why there is not enough
hunting of bison that they have to "manage" the herds? That's a lot of
expensive meat I would think hunters would covet. 

One of the problems with predator reintroduction in the U.S. is that there
have been problems with people feeding the predators and leaving out food
trash in a way that is accessible to the predators (such as mountain lions,
coyotes and coydogs), so that the predators associate human communities and
even humans with food and start stalking and preying on cats, small dogs,
infants and even adult humans (in the case of a few mountain lions). Fear of
humans is a learned behavior among animals (the animals of the Galapagos
Islands famously lack that fear), and some of the predators in the U.S. are
losing that fear. 

How well have the predator reintroduction programs gone in the UK? Since
pure-predator animals like wolves and mountain lions typically do not make
for good food, and people are no longer allowed to kill predators except
after they kill livestock or attack humans, how will we keep the predators
fearing the human populations? Will rangers be paid to startle them with
gunfire every so often or something? I wonder what methods hunter gatherers
use to scare off predators, beyond lighting fires?