[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')Stability is not a feature of agricultural populations - growth and collapse are features of those populations. Horticultural and hunter-gatherer populations tend to be more stable.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', ' ')I would contend that we do not have records of what happen to hunter gatherers in bad years (or two) because there are no permanent records.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')It's academic one way or another. Hunter/gatherer is a luxury for an underpopulated world teaming with wilderness. That's not the world we live in and whatever pockets now exist where that is possible will cease to exist post peak-oil.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '
')It's academic one way or another. Hunter/gatherer is a luxury for an underpopulated world teaming with wilderness. That's not the world we live in and whatever pockets now exist where that is possible will cease to exist post peak-oil.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')And growth is a sign of success. I want to succeed.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', '
')I would question, however, how... representative the bones of hunter gatherers studied are compared to settled communities. You have a better idea of where to look for bones and there is a larger surviving sample, since settled communities have a larger population base.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') can question some of their conclusions that do not seem to have a large enough base of support in science just as I would an economist or a historian who comes to conclusions that do not seem to account for the sparcity of evidence to reach the conclusions they make.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', 'I') can question some of their conclusions that do not seem to have a large enough base of support in science just as I would an economist or a historian who comes to conclusions that do not seem to account for the sparcity of evidence to reach the conclusions they make.

[Ludi]

Being suspicious of "monolithic conclusions" is a good thing. The conclusions "hunter-gatherers in general show less evidence of famine than agriculturists" may or may not be a monolithic conclusion. "Agriculturists are more successful than hunter-gatherer" seems, to me, to be a monolithic conclusion. But I think maybe it is more of a semantic or even value-based conclusion ("success" being rather subjective).

I guess, I'm just not sure why physical anthropologists would be more likely to be biased about their subject, than, say, historians.

Anyway, I'm tired of these arguments. Believe what you want.

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'B')eing suspicious of "monolithic conclusions" is a good thing. The conclusions "hunter-gatherers in general show less evidence of famine than agriculturists" may or may not be a monolithic conclusion. "Agriculturists are more successful than hunter-gatherer" seems, to me, to be a monolithic conclusion. But I think maybe it is more of a semantic or even value-based conclusion ("success" being rather subjective).

I guess, I'm just not sure why physical anthropologists would be more likely to be biased about their subject, than, say, historians.

Anyway, I'm tired of these arguments. Believe what you want.

[Revi]

There may be a lot of game in the mountains, or relatively inaccessible areas, but the settled areas will quickly empty of any game bigger than a squirrel.

The problem is that in an area where everyone's hungry the animals have a tendency to end up as dinner.

I don't think that "the starving masses" will eat too many of them, because they won't make it too far out of the cities.

It will be the rural people themselves who will eat most of the wildlife.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', ' ') When it comes to that one specific conclusion of anthropologists, my answer is "no, they don't."

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', ' ') When it comes to that one specific conclusion of anthropologists, my answer is "no, they don't."

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')Because you have studied the subject so much yourself? That is, you are claiming to know more about the subject than the people who study it professionally?

[allenwrench]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'T')here may be a lot of game in the mountains, or relatively inaccessible areas, but the settled areas will quickly empty of any game bigger than a squirrel.

The problem is that in an area where everyone's hungry the animals have a tendency to end up as dinner.

I don't think that "the starving masses" will eat too many of them, because they won't make it too far out of the cities.

It will be the rural people themselves who will eat most of the wildlife.

[allenwrench]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wisconsin_cur', ' ').....

flexibility is my plan. if i have to walk away from everything, then so be it; if i have to hunker down, then fine. i however don't intend to be completely tied to any single strategy.

[vetusfirma]

Maybe its all a part of learned behavior. The farmers in the Great Depression/dust bowel left there land to find land they could farm. They were farmers.

Where as the factory workers stood in food lines in the cities, probably because they were factory workers, and there wasn't any factory work anyplace.

The masses will only roam if they are energetic. If they aren't then they will stand in the bread lines.

I don't think the MZB's will be as bad as everyone thinks, or wishes.

[mystiek]

I think there will be regional variations of response as we can see how communities respond to natural disasters hitting them now. Some places the people stand around and scream "where's FEMA" "where's the Federal Government" "where's this or that" yada, yada, yada. Other places we saw this week have men, women, children, prisoners, amish folks, etc all pitching together to save and preserve their community by filling sand bags, etc. I'm sure high population areas, people will wander out for stability and food, but if you don't have the resources to pay for gas to escape far away the people will only migrate so far. This is just my own thoughts, not based on any research, that's why I don't get in a debate (smiley face-I still cant get my computer to do this, I'm SURE its operator error - lol). Hopefully I'll be correct because we now live in a southern, rural town that is primarily agriculture. Down side right now is that we have to travel about 45 minutes to 1 hour to go to "the mall"-but that's not the end of the world. I feel like a kid in a candy shop between the produce from my garden and the large quantities of fruits and vegetables I can obtain from all the pick your own farms and local farmers!

[DryObserver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('allenwrench', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') think what's more likely is a "zombie horde lite" which is just people strategically moving from collapsing cities to rural regions. In so doing they will destroy these rural areas with thier sheer numbers. They will move while they still have the means to do so.

[PhebaAndThePilgrim]

Good day from Pheba, from the farm:
This bit of doomer information is for the folks who plan on killing deer or other mammals to feed their families.
One of the reasons we have so many deer is that the herds are maintained.
The natural predators of deer (wolves) have been decimated.
We need to maintain herds to keep them from breeding out of control.
Without that maintenance herds would peak, then reduce their own numbers from overshoot and the decline that follows overshoot.

When people start hunting deer in greater and greater numbers, the ability of the deer herds to breed will be greatly impacted.
Deer numbers will decline.
There will come a time when the numbers drop below the ability of the herd to reproduce.
This will happen within the space of a few years.
While there may be enough deer to feed a local population for a few years, that number will quickly decline, and soon there will be no deer.

The British learned this the hard way. They had laws called the Forest Laws. Only the aristocracy could hunt.
The laws could be savage. Most peasants found hunting were sent to debtors prison.
One time an English king revoked the Forest Laws in a bid for popularity. Memory fails me on which king it was.
The move was a disaster. In a short space of time the livestock was decimated. There was an actual risk of losing the animals forever.
The king had to reinstate the Forest Laws. This was a disaster for the King's popularity. Reinstating an unpopular law was the worst thing a King could do, but it was necessary.

If you wrap your head around the differences in population numbers, and the inability of the powers that be to enforce any modern equivalent to "forest Laws", then it is easy to see that it is going to be a mad scramble.

I would not be surprised to witness the extinction of the White-tailed deer in a very short time.

A more realistic view would be to acquire a taste for field mice.

Pheba.