Dennis You may *beg* to disagree but what you said appears to agree with what I said parenthetically, i.e. a vehement denial of a possibility that you beg to disagree with.
> >It seems to me that had it been possible for hunter-gatherers to think in > >such a way (and I deny vehemently that it would have been possible), there > >would have been no impetus for the development of agriculture. > > > > I beg to disagree. If 1 days equals 1 mastadon then as the population > grows as it did, soon the population of hunters exceeds the population > of mastadons. This leads to the rapid collapse of the mastadon > society. If this happens to most of the prey species (as is occurring > today with the fisheries, homo populations either migrate to unpopulated > areas or take up agriculture. Or wars and famines reduce the homo > populations back to sustainable levels. > > All of these effects are occuring today and are be the drivers of future > social trends. > > Food is not the only resource subject to 'population' dynamics. Energy > seems to be subject to similar economic principles. So does water, air > etc. The biggest experiment is occuring in China and we should know within > a decade or so how it will work itself out. > > The fact that China does not have enough resources to support its > current population will probably turn out to be the reason that the > Chinese do not take over the world. The US would have the same problem > if they continued to let their population grow unbounded. > > Who will be the leaders that will be willing to tell our fecund population > that we have run out of good land to expand into? And that we had all > better figure out how to get along with only replacement child bearing > rates? > > Dennis Paull > Half Moon Bay, CA >
