On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:21:01 -0400, matesz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>All calculations regarding space requirements of hunter gatherers are based
>on academic assumptions regarding natural productivity, availability, and
>choice of foods that may not be accurate.  For example, how many of the
>'scientists' making such calculations have taken into account native habits
>of eating insects...

If the scientific assumptions about population density which I got for
middle Europe may not be accurate for african savannah or coasts, then why
not gather some practical numbers?
If a Somaila coast could sustain double of the humans as old Englands woods
then still even the most primitive stone age agriculture sustains 500 fold
of them.
I consider it probable that insect gathering and seafood gathering would
sustain more, as I told. Populations witch exploit more plant food directly
(like nut tree forests, acorns and similar) will likewise come closer to
grain agriculture.
The harvest estimation from californian walnut farms, and from various fruit
farms (bananas etc.) I've found to provide a comparable amount of food
energy as well as protein per hectar as simple grains.

>You implied that 'we' should not eat animal products because there now are
>6 billion humans on earth and by our eating animal products others are made
>hungry.

I've not implied this. This is a personal decision for each human, who can
always contribute only a very small part to reducing the resources necessary
for each. Mass agriculture meat does have impact, as well as oil
consumation, machinery use which in turn consumes resources (like my 2
cars).

>This simply is not true.  People go hungry in various nations
>because they are coerced into growing cash crops for export instead of
>raising food for indigenous use.   We are not depriving them by eating
>animal foods--least of all by eating seafoods.

I agree that the real problem is the population growth.
But now we are 6 billion humans, what shall we do with *these*?
If all would eat less farmed animals, more crops would be left for all,
isn't that true? In Argentinia for example a lot of soy is grown, which in
turn is fed to animals - in Argentinia, in Europe. These gigantic soy
farmlands could be used to produce a lot of crops suited well for the people
there. Directly. That would be better for the hungry people there, insteat
of buying additional tanks for some army from the money from the soy or
export meat. Or not?
Seafood is different, it is the last actual wild game in amount on earth.
There's no objection. If the resources arent overfished. As it seems to be
the case right now. Many whale species aren't anymore. Many fish species are
rare. To many nations send their trawlers. A breakdown might occur within
some years.




>"If the Japanese were to grow enough food on
>land to replace the amount of fish they eat, they would need seven times
>the amount of land which they presently possess."

Compared to meat farms... Certainly not to soy or rice.
Know what, once I wanted to become a fish farmer, because of the bigger
productivity fish farms have.

>Since only a fraction of the Earth is dry land, most of it being ocean or
>other bodies of water, seafoods are important for a large population.

Agree. Already in use.

>
>Finally, there is no doubt that the present human population is near or
>already exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth.

Agree.

>Hence, a rational
>long term plan should involve finding ways to reduce the present
>population.

Sounds like a dream. They are hoping to find ways that the population
doesn't skyrocket to 10 billion within short time.
Not to think about reduction. Humans live 70 years. Most are < 10 years.
Even if these don't have children.. to reduce them would mean to kill them.

>1)  Cattle raisers have long known that if animals become too fat, they
>become sterile;

A new way of birth control?
Reminds me of "In Bayern ist essen angewandte Empfängnisverhütung".
(In Bavaria, eatin is birth control applied).
Of a cabarattetist about the usual fat pig dish.

>
>2)  There is an inverse association between human birth rates and amounts
>of animal proteins consumed daily, for example:
>
>Formosa:  birth rate, 45.6, daily animal protein intake, 4.7 grams
..
>Sweden:  birth rate, 15.0, daily animal protein intake, 62.6 grams

I think it's poverty what rises the birth rate.

Poor countries have large birth rates. The poorest slums have big birth
rates. Rich countries have low birth rates. Like Sweden.
Rich countries can afford much expensive animal protein.
I think this makes up you your table.

>(de Castro provides a list of 14 nations illustrating the inverse relation)
>A simple observation is that overpopulation is a problem in nations where
>people have adopted a vegetarian diet, and populations are stable in
>nations where people eat plenty of animal protein.

A simple observation is that overpopulated nations cannot manage to nourish
their people other than the most effective way: vegetarian. I think there's
nor disagreement between us, that it is.
Rich countries can afford to buy soy and other crops from other countries
and feed it to animals.
Coincidentely rich people want less efforts for child raising and can afford
birth control so rich countries have a low birth rate.

> Few would argue that H-Gs were more affluent than early
>agriculturalists.  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).

Primitive agriculturalists have
- food security
- plenty of protein
- plenty of energy
h/g's lack the last, except where fat animals live.

Bone examinations from the very first neolithic settlements in near east
found out that in such settlements 20 people had 24 children.
Thus 1.2 children per person. Not really much, but after a few 100 or 1000
years of developement you get a gigantic multiply.
Even though this is only one new human lasting for every 5 in the parent
generation.

I venture to doubt that gatherhunters have less children.

But neolithic people in a neolithic settlement have a more secured life.
Nature dangers from hunting or from wild animals can easily cost the one
additional person per five adults, per generation. I think so.
In a group of 20 neanderthals this would mean 4 killed in the hunt within 15
years.
And that 0.2 descendant per person makes up the difference.

>So... the real solution--the long term solution, i.e. reduction of
>birth rates, and ultimately of population--can only be achieved by
>INCREASING animal protein intake--or at least maintaining it at a high
>level
>wherever possible, so that not all nations end up 'going to seed" and
>overpopulated like the carbohydrate based nations, such as modern India or
>China.

Besides my doubts, how would think that could be accomplished?
I think if a country like China which lives close to it's capacity, starts
to feed it's harvest to animals, then mass starvations would be the result
of it.

Regards, Amadeus