ain't no dream, it's all too real..

Go after poachers, stop human overpopulation, expand sanctuaries and reforest lost habitats. Maybe then can these species thrive once more.

As with most environmental problems. More people=More need for farmland and living spaces. People then encroach into the forests and wild places driving out the native animals. Poaching is another big problem. A lot of it is driven by Asian cultures who believe in 'witchdoctor medicines' and all that silliness. "Take some ground tiger penis to cure erectile issues".

Sometimes things sink because they aren't the gossip or outrage of the day. Sometimes you might notice recs, but not comments; maybe because people appreciate, but have nothing of substance to add.

Most of my posts, unless they inflame someone's partisan beliefs, sink like a rock because the things that interest me don't really interest those that come here to engage in team cheerleading or attacking the other team.

And my solution to endangered species, climate change, and most of our other ills begins with a highly unpopular notion: population reduction.

It's a bigpart of what my job is, and it's not good. We now live in a period of Conservation Reliance. No species can survive without human intervention. That's a bit of risble irony. Conservationists may/will/are deciding which species have a good enough head shot/story to make the world care eno

I admire you for working with this issue. I'm not sure I could do it and keep my sanity.

so called big game hunting in any form.

with donations and petition signatures.

"Friends" don't seem to care. I hate people.

We're so successful as a species that we're in a position to at least somewhat care about other species, but we're not really built to care about other species, or even members of our own species that we'll never meet. Our imagination gets more abstract, but physical reality is what it is. It's a tough equation.

and hopes.

It never seems like enough.

I just got back to this post and it's quite late here; I'll respond more tomorrow.

I do agree with most that overpopulation / habitat destruction and encroachment is the main threat (aside from people's bizarre medical / sexual beliefs). It seems that population control / reduction is such a difficult topic to discuss; people get outraged and self-righteous so quickly. Procreation is so hard-wired into the human brain (well, all species, but we're supposed to be advanced enough to manage our instincts) we seem incapable of rational thought once the desire for a child kicks in (in areas where birth control is an option - not talking about the areas where women have little to no choice, which is where most population growth occurs).

That's how much space every single person on the planet (given a current number of 7.125 billion) would have if crammed into a land area the size of the state of Texas

That math is equal to just about HALF the population density of Gutenburg, NJ

The average size of an apartment in Manhattan is 750 square feet.
The average size of an apartment in Tokyo is 635 square feet

The problem IS NOT over population.

The problems are lack of proper distribution of resources, lack of proper planning, lack of proper disposal/handling of waste materials (including atmospheric gasses) and crappy education, overall, worldwide.

Many countries and/or areas excel at cramming large populations into a small space.

Most do not.

The idea that the Earth is overpopulated is a myth. It isn't, it's just that the entirety of humanity has not yet learned how to properly manage the world we live in without fucking everything else over.

Imagine.......every single person on earth living in a massive city, well managed, well constructed and well supplied, a city the size of the State of Texas (OK.... add Oklahoma also) and most (save the area needed for food production) of the REST OF THE PLANET a massive wildlife park.

Edit to add, do I think the above will ever happen? No, I don't. But the fact is, even with the current population distribution around the globe, we could still live on a very sustainable planet, even with twice the number of people currently on it. We as a species, just need to do a much better job of what I mentioned above - management.

Management sounds better, but what we need to do is control everything. Either way, it gets more difficult to do with every variable that gets added to the equation.

Billions of people crammed into cities, not so much.

Perhaps a combination of both ideas - let's just stabilize the population right here and now, and be smarter about it all. We wouldn't have to all live cheek-to-jowl if there were fewer of us. I agree completely that humans have done a piss-poor job of managing their 'personal' living / working space. But everyone in their own 750 sq ft apartment doesn't sound wonderful, either. I've lived in a high rise in NYC and while it had its moments, it certainly wasn't ideal for me, even though I did get to benefit from Central Park (when it was daylight and safe). I now live in about a 750 sq ft cabin on 2 acres. I'd be fine with one acre or even a half an acre, this is just where I am right now. But I don't like to be really close to lots of other people all the time. If we manage our population better, we can each have a little breathing room. And leave 75% of the land to wildlife / wild areas (and all of the oceans/lakes). Some like cities, some like it a bit quieter. It can be done, but we should really think long and hard about stabilizing the human population now.

Humans are supposed to have the brainpower to fix all of this mess we've created (wiping out 10% of wilderness in 25 years...) but we can't seem to control our greed or manage our instincts to procreate. We tout the benefits of self-control and behavior modification / management in most areas, why not limit the urge to pop out lots of kids just because the maternal or paternal instinct kicks in, or because religious or societal or even capitalist culture (people = consumers = ever-increasing profit for shareholders!) pressures people to have children?

Advanced enough to manage our instincts. Or is that just an idea that human beings have made up, like language, or time, etc. to try to impose an order on anything outside of the human mind?

that story gave light to these trophy hunts. People all over the world were outraged and horrified by Cecil's murder. Likewise that story a few weeks ago about the 12 year old girl killing a giraffe and a zebra totally outraged many. Thanks to social media - these idiots pose with pictures of their murders and are then shocked that they receive so much hateful feedback. In my opinion, the vast majority of people do seem to care.

But good things have happened by some countries because of this media attention.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/cecil-african-lion-anniversary-death-trophy-hunting-zimbabwe/



thanks Flaxbee for shining the light on this subject.

Hi IcyPeas

But - are people concerned enough to willingly modify their behavior / their wants? It's easy to tweet and retweet outrage and then sit back and chow down on a burger from cattle that graze on formerly rainforest land ... but some of the social media pressure has helped.