Quoted message said: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.
Read it again, buddy. Some grains were eaten by man, the rest of the
grain became forage was used to feed the animals which were in turn
used for food and field work.
Quoted message said: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.
Where there were no larger animals to domesticate, development lagged.
In Asia and Europe, they had more animals they could domesticate, such
as cattle, goats, etc., so they thrived culturally.
You may actually want to read what you critique. That way your comments
wont look quite as stupid.
TC