Your Controversial Opinion

Barr125 · 24-07-2014 10:56pm #1

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.

SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

magicbastarder · 24-07-2014 11:04pm

i think a lot of what you're trying to achieve would be more easily done and more politically palatable by simply giving women better education and dominion over their own bodies in many developing parts of the world, where the population is growing fastest.

i suspect the drain on earth's resources is more to do with increasing demand per capita rather than population expansion; china being a case in point. the environmental damage has accelerated with increased affluence more than population growth, i think.

shruikan2553 · 24-07-2014 11:38pm

I can believe it's not butter.

recedite · 25-07-2014 12:35am

Barr125 wrote: »

controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I let my toenail clippings fly free, away into the unknown at high speed.

Frank Lee Midere · 25-07-2014 12:40am

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.

SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

Since the birth rate is below replacement in most of the West, nearly all of the non-Islamic Northern hemisphere, and western colonies like South America, Australia etc - you would need this program to run in Pakistan and Sub Suharan Africa.

Can't see that working.

Rips · 25-07-2014 12:46am

It'll never work.

The people who want children will never go for it.

The people who don't want children, won't have descendants to see the benefits :pac:

Frank Lee Midere · 25-07-2014 12:49am

Also the earth running out if resources is largely just plucked out of thin air.

My name is URL · 25-07-2014 2:20am

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

Nick Park · 25-07-2014 3:03am

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most of us are here is we have the "controversial" stance that we don't believe a god exists.

But I've been wondering about some other opinions we have, particularly one's that you (and others if you've expressed it) have seen as controversial and on the fringe of civilized society.

I'll get the ball rolling with one that I've talked about a few times and nearly always gotten a negative response to:
the implementation of governmental population control in the next 50 years.

Now before you descend to the reply section, let me clarify. I'm NOT advocating eugenics, artificial social selection (I don't call it social Darwinism anymore), forced abortions, euthanasia (well, I'm for voluntary euthanasia in other cases, but this is a different), genocide, mandatory sterilization or any other straw-men that is usually leveled at the very idea of population control.

The reason I'm for it is the fact that our current population is 3 times the size of what a sustainable population for the Earth and is still growing exponentially We are consuming our resources faster than they can be replenished at a rate of 50%. What that means is that in 12 months, we consume resources that took 18 months to produce.

Anyone who has seen and understands "predator-prey population" graphs knows that, whether we do something or not, this problem of overpopulation will sort itself out naturally and that will be a dire situation if it's ever reached. For further reading see Population Balance

My ideas for its implementation are a random lottery at birth to designate the child as a breeder or non-breeder (apathetic language I know but this needs to be an apathetic situation) or a voluntary sterilization program for people 18 and over and with no children already. And people would not be punished for accidentally having children (I envisage an incentives program to attract people to the idea)

The point is not to decrease the population dramatically in a short space of time but to lower the birth rate under the death rate (which, thanks to modern medical science, might be quite hard).

I also understand that the ideas I've posted over would heavily infringe on the rights of people's choices, but at some point in the very near future, people will lose the "right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services" and others through the natural progression of natural population control.

There is no way around it. Either we do it in a calm, reasonable, well-legislated manner that leaves people with their dignity as much as possible or we let nature do it for us. if you have any questions about anything I haven't clarified above, please ask bleow.

SO what's your unpopular opinion? What do you think should or shouldn't be that makes people turn their heads and say "You think THAT?"

(I would ask that if you're replying to anyone else's opinion, do it civilly. This is a thread for civil discussion of less than popular ideas. Thank you.)

You mean like a one-child policy or something?

Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing. I'm sure I've heard of this happening before somewhere.

endacl · 25-07-2014 3:14am

Just for clarity, OP. 'Other beliefs'? That 'we' have?

Whatchoo talkin' bout'?!?

I don't accept, based on lack of evidence, that there is a god. It's got nothing to do with 'belief'. I'm fairly sure that'd accurately describe many on this forum. That's as far as it goes, though. We don't all have to like the same stuff, listen to the same music, or hold the same 'controversial' opinions.

Except where John Waters and biscuits are concerned, of course. There seems to be broad consensus on those. Except for the weirdos who think Jaffa Cakes are biscuits. Some of them even like pineapple on their pizza! Controversial enough for ya?

endacl · 25-07-2014 3:17am

My name is URL wrote: »

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

A 'straight to video' idea...

front to_the_back 88 · 25-07-2014 3:39am

My controversial opinion...

is that most self defined 'agnostic atheists' would believe in a god if there was proof of its existence, and are therefore - if not gnostic atheists - definitely both gnostic and atheist. Agnosticism being the belief that it can never be known whether there exists a god or not...

Calibos · 25-07-2014 4:49am

Re population:

25-07-2014 4:59am

My name is URL wrote: »

Of all the ways population controls could be ushered in and used.. a lottery has got to be the most absurd option imaginable.

Open your mind man. It could be you.

Cabaal · 25-07-2014 8:44am

I have seriously radical idea's, so radical the government fears implementing them and the church hates them

- Equal treatment of employee's regardless of sexual preference in our schools and hospitals
- Removal of religious iconography and imagery from state funded or run buildings, lands etc (this includes county councils)....bye bye Papal Cross!
- All schools funded by the state should have no religious "ethos"
- Women who have for example been raped and have become pregnant or have a fetus with a fatal abnormality should receive all the support they need, if they choose to have an abortion then they should receive all the support and services they need to do this. Doctors who refuse to provide such support based on religious ethos should be removed from positions.
- I want to see my fellow human beings get the right to be married (if they want to), without a bunch of religious people arguing that people I know should be treated differently to me and my wife.
- I want the government to take meaningful action against religious orders who refuse to co-operate with sex abuse cases, if the organizations refuse to provide records then they should be shut down in Ireland and no longer allowed operate. If they refuse to compensate victims then assets should be taken by the state and sold.
- I want religious organizations in Ireland to pay their equal share of tax, its all fine and well for them to lecture Apple, Google etc on tax because they use loopholes. But religious organizations receive legal special treatment. This is wrong.

Finally, if religious organizations need funding then perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Vatican supported German model and require that followers of their faith pay a "church tax" so they can use church services.

magicbastarder · 25-07-2014 9:05am

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Also the earth running out if resources is largely just plucked out of thin air.

we're running out of air too?

Mr. CooL ICE · 25-07-2014 9:39am

Global warming is, for the most part, not man-made. And no, I'm not a republican!

magicbastarder · 25-07-2014 10:16am

global warming is caused by the sun.

robindch · 25-07-2014 10:22am

Nick Park wrote: »

You mean like a one-child policy or something? Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing.

I'm inclined to think the opposite - most, probably all, of Europe is reproducing below the replacement rate. Notwithstanding the efforts of quite a few Westminster politicians, quite a few governments have tried to up it:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/33485/5-creative-ways-countries-tried-their-birth-rates
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/05/children_for_sale.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/04/can_a_country_boost_its_low_birth_rate_examples_from_around_the_world.html

etc, etc, etc.

smacl · 25-07-2014 10:36am

robindch wrote: »

I'm inclined to think the opposite - most, probably all, of Europe is reproducing below the replacement rate. Notwithstanding the efforts of quite a few Westminster politicians, quite a few governments have tried to up it:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/33485/5-creative-ways-countries-tried-their-birth-rates
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/05/children_for_sale.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2013/04/can_a_country_boost_its_low_birth_rate_examples_from_around_the_world.html

etc, etc, etc.

It would be interesting whether increased immigration is balancing this out. Population decline certainly doesn't seem to be an issue here in Ireland, quite the opposite if anything. Personally, I blame the Catholics

robindch · 25-07-2014 10:41am

smacl wrote: »

It would be interesting whether increased immigration is balancing this out.

Amongst other things, probably yes.

Last time I looked the babies-per-woman ratio here in Ireland was around 2.1 which is just about enough to keep the population static. That means the rest has to be coming from either immigration or a decline in the death rate and AFAIR there was a noticeable dropoff in this two - something like an increase in lifespan of two years with every passing ten years, if memory serves.

smacl · 25-07-2014 12:15pm

Hmmm, world population crisis. Controversial opinion. Think I'll have to defer to Jello and crew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ORKLaozFzo

Brian Shanahan · 25-07-2014 12:43pm

Nick Park wrote: »

You mean like a one-child policy or something?

Is it really that controversial for atheists to advocate such a thing. I'm sure I've heard of this happening before somewhere.

China has a state religion, a mixture of confuscianism and leader worship where Mao is god.

Brian Shanahan · 25-07-2014 12:47pm

front to_the_back 88 wrote: »

is that most self defined 'agnostic atheists' would believe in a god if there was proof of its existence.

That is most definitely a false belief, for one simple reason. Belief disappears when the thing believed in is proven to exist. Therefore if god were proven to exist, nobody would believe in his existence (apart from those that believed in a different god which still had no evidence of existence), they would no more believe in god than in the chairs they sat on.

Belief only exists in two specific instances, 1) where there is insufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision (e.g. belief in a generic non-specific god, which has different problems like how do you prove something with no attributes), 2) where there is enough evidence for such a decision but the decision disagrees with your conlusion and you still hold to it.

Frank Lee Midere · 25-07-2014 2:17pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

China has a state religion, a mixture of confuscianism and leader worship where Mao is god.

No, it doesn't. Nobody calls Mao a God.

recedite · 25-07-2014 2:41pm

China doesn't mind most religions, so long as ultimate control does not lie within a foreign state. Although they do seem to have a grudge against the Falun Gong.
Chinese Catholicism is almost identical to Roman Catholicism, except that the ability to appoint suitable Bishops, (or to muzzle or sack them) them lies with the Chinese state, and not with Rome.
In many respects, it is a similar reasoning to Henry VIII's establishment of the Church of England. Vatican still hopes to regain control some day, so does not declare Chinese Catholicism to be "schismatic".

Nodin · 25-07-2014 2:48pm

Barr125 wrote: »

The reason most (............). Thank you.)

Utopia is a damn good show allright.

front to_the back 88 · 25-07-2014 9:07pm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That is most definitely a false belief, for one simple reason. Belief disappears when the thing believed in is proven to exist. Therefore if god were proven to exist, nobody would believe in his existence (apart from those that believed in a different god which still had no evidence of existence), they would no more believe in god than in the chairs they sat on

Belief only exists in two specific instances, 1) where there is insufficient evidence to make a reasoned decision (e.g. belief in a generic non-specific god, which has different problems like how do you prove something with no attributes), 2) where there is enough evidence for such a decision but the decision disagrees with your conlusion and you still hold to it.

Ok, how about agnostic atheists who believe it may be possible to know at some point in the future whether a god exists, or who say they would accept the existence of god if there were proof, are not agnostic.

jjpep · 25-07-2014 9:16pm

My controversial opinion is that you should need a license to vote. You would need to pass a test every ten years to renew the license. Test would include history, political theory, economics and include some kind of test for empathy.

magicbastarder · 25-07-2014 11:46pm

so educated people would have an advantage when it came to vote. lovely.

magicbastarder · 25-07-2014 11:54pm

seriously, that's a ****ing odious idea.
you get political representation based on how well you do on a test.
and that's not even beginning to examine who gets to decide what the correct results are in the test.

Your Controversial Opinion

Comments