Amadeus Schmidt wrote:

> So the main bottleneck would be water, I suppose.
> This is not a joke: Is blood a satisfying drink?

well considering people drink dr pepper.....
seriously though, the blood is consumed.
I didn't really connect this with the topic,
but would the blood sugar make a difference?
I have seen people drink the blood.



> I recall an estimation a long time ago of 1 or 2 million.

I really doubt this could be attained pre agriculture.

> I think Argentinian beef gained some popularity here. But this beef is also
> raised by power fedder in farm houses. Possibly also with "animal flour",
> which is held responsible as the cause.

In this respect we are lucky - our cattle graze and roam free. Cattle
stations
are absolutely huge here - you could drive for hours and still be on the
same
station.


>
> If you look at a graphic, then the numbers have been relative constant until
> the middle ages, about 1200 AD. 5000 years of agriculture didn't change so
> much. Why did it boost so astronimically after 1400?
> Medicine? Political stability? Maybe just more aggressive food production.

the last one I would think. but this would be as a result for a need for
the second
one. As far as I can find medicine didn't improve lifespan/population
until
the 20th century.

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]