Leandra Jacobson 4/12/09

If the availability of food does not set the population, then what does? Larger animals such as humans practice replacement and not mass reproduction. This is seen in hunter gatherers like lions and wolves, not the agriculturists who reproduce more for reasons of expansion and not for tribe maintenance. It’s a cultural or a social value that is not only present in humans, although highly intellectual beings, family values are present in wild animals as well. This hunter population size is to be set by the lowest bracket of available food, the worst food year or years seen. Having food, or excess of food, is normal for agriculturists who do not have as much a fulfilling diet as a hunter. The hunter is adjusted to being hungry, satisfied by the meat taken in and not a constant consumption of grains and vegetation. Humans are all moving away from that type of consumption in America and are definitely modeling after agriculturalists where the more food is the better, but not necessarily as healthy.
Hunters do not live in populated densities as seen in nature and do not reproduce to their maximum capacity as Shepard says. This is also supportive of the weaning out of the hunters in humankind, especially in America. So if all of Shepard’s points support how the hunter lifestyle is better, is there a possible way to return to becoming hunters? I try and fight my agricultural nature by running and exercise, but no matter how far or often I run my body will never outrun a horse or be in the shape of that type of hunter. As a vegetarian I have also defined myself very much so as an agriculturalist and nothing like a hunter, although if I lived on a farm where I raised the animals I would consume them when it came time to.