Most Japanese don't really like whale meat

[wardric]

Then if you dont hunt or gather, what do you do? agriculture? It's done way more damage to animal populations that hunting and gathering by destroying their habitat. And since I haven't found a way to do photosythesis yet, I'll have to stick with eating animals and plants.

"It is neither noble nor savage to work, fight, and kill for your survival" he says? he's right, it's only life.The fact that the human population grow so fast and increase it's numbers and territory will make wildlife dissapear at a very fast rate. Hunting and gathering may be NO LONGER sustainable in certain areas due to the success of the human race (no predators, less mortality, population growth).

Lions hunt, monkeys gather, we do both because we have to survive. It' all natural.

So in a way, I agree with your biologist, but I dont think we interpret him the same way, that's all.

 

[cdiver2]

I think you understand what he is saying, now take it a step further and dwell on

success of the human race (no predators, less mortality, population growth).

Animals are not living longer we, are and the birth rate is going up. So as we increase our numbers, live longer we will reduce other life forms (food) by taking more of them for food and reducing suitable habitat for them to reproduce.

 

[wardric]

I agree with that, it's what I meant altough maybe I wasn't really clear on that.

But we still have to eat and the population growth is a problem not easily resolved.

I think you understand what he is saying, now take it a step further and dwell on

Animals are not living longer we, are and the birth rate is going up. So as we increase our numbers, live longer we will reduce other life forms (food) by taking more of them for food and reducing suitable habitat for them to reproduce.

 

[cdiver2]

population growth is a problem not easily resolved.

The egg heads thought they had the answer when the pill came along, I don't think they understood human nature

The Chinese had an answer, but I dont think that would go over very well in the west :11:

 

[wardric]

:lol:

 

[H2Andy]

As long as these communities increase in size and young people take over larger forest tracts, the wildlife will continue to disappear.

no kidding.. . the guy you are quoting, he is a PHD?

of course they'll continue to dissapear

AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE than if you had bulldozers and slash-and-burn
farming going on

so, ultimately, yes, hunting and gethering is a lot more sustainable, for a much
longer period, with a lot less inpact on the environment, than agriculture

basically, once you have agriculture, you have true surplusses of food, which
will explode population, which will explode damage to the environment

more population = more damage to the enviroment

agriculture = more population

agriculture = more damage to the enviroment

 

[cdiver2]

no kidding.. . the guy you are quoting, he is a PHD?

of course they'll continue to dissapear

AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE than if you had bulldozers and slash-and-burn
farming going on

so, ultimately, yes, hunting and gethering is a lot more sustainable, for a much
longer period, with a lot less inpact on the environment, than agriculture

basically, once you have agriculture, you have true surplusses of food, which
will explode population, which will explode damage to the environment

more population = more damage to the enviroment

agriculture = more population

agriculture = more damage to the enviroment

So who is slashing and burning...the animals?

agriculture = more population

I thought it was a little more basic than that

 

[DavidPT40]

Farming is far more efficient than hunting animals. 40% of the U.S. is still forested, and we have a surplus of food.

But the real world situation is this- In areas where animals are protected, governments have to go in and kick out the indigenous people, because they simply kill and eat all the animals.

So lets say on average it takes 5 acres of farmland to support the food supply for a person. It may take 100 acres of forestland to feed a hunter-gatherer.

 

[Cacia]

eeeww, if you can hold your own against Andy, we can make pop-corn.

 

[wardric]

Farming is far more efficient than hunting animals. 40% of the U.S. is still forested, and we have a surplus of food.

But the real world situation is this- In areas where animals are protected, governments have to go in and kick out the indigenous people, because they simply kill and eat all the animals.

So lets say on average it takes 5 acres of farmland to support the food supply for a person. It may take 100 acres of forestland to feed a hunter-gatherer.

Do you include only plant agriculture or raising animals like cows (for example in the brasilian forest).

By expanding our habitat (cities), we do far more damage than hunting and gathering will ever do. Hunting and gathering can be done in a controled sustainable way. But unfortunately, it's not always done that way.