Hydroelectric dams threaten tigers

[Jessica]

We really have to reduce the world population. It feels like everything we do fucks something up.
It always gets framed as how many humans the world can literally provide for, but obviously if we want to share the planet with other animals then they have to be in place of humans. The world can only provide for so many animals.

[Amerijuanican]

LOL I'm thinking of a comic I saw in Playboy back in my teens... A jumbo jet had arrived in Africa, guys crowded all around

The plane had the slogan of a popular Condom manufacturer in large letters on the side. They were free to all...

No I'm not being (fill in the blank... woke-ism response)

Just telling the story. Don't shoot the messenger

[WritersPanic]

We really have to reduce the world population. It feels like everything we do fucks something up.
It always gets framed as how many humans the world can literally provide for, but obviously if we want to share the planet with other animals then they have to be in place of humans. The world can only provide for so many animals.

I'm more inclined to think it's the humans that come with the hydro plants that are having a bigger impact. In the US hydro plants seem to come in all sizes. This is because the river water can be used multiple times just by adding more dams. This means more lakes form, but not all of those are as dramatic as lake Mead. I've seen 2MW hydro plants that were supplied by a relatively small lake because the river flow was more than what was needed most of the time. Instead of building one massive dam, they build a dozen smaller ones so that one feeds the next in a chain.

On the issue of population, yes, we have too many humans. The problem is which ones do we get rid of? Plenty of people would just love to apply a political agenda to this question. After all, if we kill off everyone we disagree with, we'll arrive in Utopia in short order (yes, people actually believe this). So then the question is answered by killing off all the people who waste the most resources. Then it falls to those who contribute the least.

The underlying theme of all of this is how many ways we can so easily decide which populations need to be extinguished so the rest of us have a better life. It's the sort of discussion people have had on lifeboats after a week or more lost at sea. Only we don't have a port to eventually weigh anchor. And Mars is not humanity's lifeboat.

So we have to solve the problem here and now. But we can't because we are distracted by more important issues like pronouns, politics and sexuality.

[Amerijuanican]

exactly.
I thought world peace, save the animals, coexist, greenpeace..
Now we have silly-cone valley think tank folks and all of a sudden it's time to de-populate.
what happened to the left and their desire to work it all out as a big happy family?

[Din Djarin]

We don't have to get rid of anyone in order to decrease population. If you think the answer to that involves killing in any way, I'm sorry, you don't really get it. It's not a good or long term solution

If we (the global population) went about it fairly and reasonable (which we won't) there would be measures in the most overpopulated regions and the most rapidly growing regions.

Everything would be so much better and easier with less people on the earth.

[WritersPanic]

A problem for tigers is that when humans move into their habitats the first thing the humans do is execute the male tigers. So be it a dam or a shopping center the tiger will be the loser. This sucks because we allow power production areas to become centers for humans. A better plan would be to build the dam/generating station and then just put the power to the grid and disallow any other construction so a town doesn't pop up. Which means fewer people complaining about their children being eaten by tigers.

[Irminsul]

I'm just going to go ahead and say it.

Don't tigers and jaguars live in like Indian jungles and shit? What are 3rd world areas doing with hydroelectric dams anyway heyyoooo am I right?? ?????

I mean of all the adverts that get us to donate money to the children, I never seen one of em carrying a bucket of water on their heads back from a hydroelectric dam. They tell us they gotta walk 5 miles for that.

Something fishy going on ere. Somethin fishy.

One of them, is lying.

[WritersPanic]

We don't have to get rid of anyone in order to decrease population. If you think the answer to that involves killing in any way, I'm sorry, you don't really get it. It's not a good or long term solution

If we (the global population) went about it fairly and reasonable (which we won't) there would be measures in the most overpopulated regions and the most rapidly growing regions.

Everything would be so much better and easier with less people on the earth.

It's the usual way humans have handled this in the past, I wasn't passing judgment. If you consider how advanced and mechanized our means of killing people has become, it's not a stretch to think that various approaches could be attempted. While preventing pregnancies seems to make logical sense, too many people on this planet still use children as their retirement plan.

While we have enough nuclear weapons to render much of the earth uninhabitable for decades or even centuries, any who remain will have problems for most of that time before Utopia can be realized. While it's probably the most messy way to do it, it's also essentially the cheapest. Especially if you have a plan to sequester segments of the population from the carnage, Logan's Run style.

Diseases have been used for centuries to cull populations. When they grow to pandemic proportions all kinds of civil issues are likely. We've seen this with syphilis, Yersinia pestis, cholera and botulism. At best this method can probably achieve as much as 5% of the population over a year before the rest revolt. Still, at that rate the population can be culled substantially in two decades by staying just below 4%.

Lastly, we could simply mandate birth control or add it to the water supply strategically.

Maybe there's a soft, cuddly idea out there for getting humans to quit making babies but so far that only seems to work in a limited array of places.

[neonspectraltoast]

We must destroy the planet. Tigers suck. They're dumb ugly furfucks who just eat people and shit. Fuck them.

Also we must kill a lot of people. I just get off on piles of dead bodies.

[Amerijuanican]

The death of statues is a good starting point, I suppose

[neonspectraltoast]

I did someting wroONG.

[6-eyed]

We don't have to get rid of anyone in order to decrease population. If you think the answer to that involves killing in any way, I'm sorry, you don't really get it. It's not a good or long term solution

If we (the global population) went about it fairly and reasonable (which we won't) there would be measures in the most overpopulated regions and the most rapidly growing regions.

Everything would be so much better and easier with less people on the earth.

Yeah, who needs to kill anyone when we could warm up the planet until enough natural disasters wipe out civilizations. Then all the tigers can have the planet for themselves.

[neonspectraltoast]

How you say whoever millionaire thinks should die...them who are died...millionaire knows how to live...poor people should just die don't you agree?

[neonspectraltoast]

Elon Musk builds robot to Mars. For sure he isn't dieded. I don't care even if I survive just as long as the Great man such as he survives. His cock is strong like rabbit.

[neonspectraltoast]

Three words: all out bloodbath.

Among the commoners, anyway.

[neonspectraltoast]

The only way to avert catastrophe is for billions of commoners to die.