Oh dear, how more befuddled can one get, a perfect example of hearing what
one wants to based on the bias going into a situation. If you had
listened carefully, it was grain as food for humans that made the large
populations possible, the animals didn't eat the grain but were put loose
on the fields after collecting the grain and using adjacent grasslands.
What about the examples also discussed of china and n. and s. america
where no domestication was present? I suggest you read the book on which
the series is based. Yet another confirmation of how a little
information, beffudled at that, can be a dangerous thing.
"Interesting show on PBS. The fellow made some very interesting points
about man's development since about 11,000 years ago and the advent of
agriculture.
The upshot is that man's development of grain agriculture gave him an
advantage and led to rapid development of society and technology. But it
wasn't necessarily the advantage of having the grains as a new source of
food for man that was the advantage, but having the grains as a source of
animal feed that enabled the domestication of farm animals that led to the
great advances in culture, etc.
Grains did not give us the advantage because of its value as a human
food but because of its value as an animal feed."