What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
j_4m said:
singlecoil said:
We can't.
We can't even talk about it, because I'm a racist.
Depends on how blunt your instrument is. A neutron bomb would be a great way of indiscriminately solving London's housing crisis and bringing rents to a more affordable level.We can't even talk about it, because I'm a racist.
The thing is, that will make SFA difference in real terms. 15-20 million dead in a country with low population growth (0.6% per year).
Even if there was random selection, 3 in 8 people selected in a lottery based on population density per sq mile perfectly adjusted to all variables, all it will do is delay overpopulation, not stop it. What people will do with the huge amount of resources freed up is breed more. Its what we've evolved to do, civilisation is a relatively new thing compared to centuries of biological evolution and our base drives and evolutionary instincts are just not adjusted to modern civilisation.
Humans are still just animals, we wear more clothes and make more noise, but we're still animals and those base instincts ultimately still guide our lives.
See Singlecoil, we're discussing it... It's not the topic that's wrong here.
captain_cynic said:
I get that you're joking, but that aside.
The thing is, that will make SFA difference in real terms. 15-20 million dead in a country with low population growth (0.6% per year).
Even if there was random selection, 3 in 8 people selected in a lottery based on population density per sq mile perfectly adjusted to all variables, all it will do is delay overpopulation, not stop it. What people will do with the huge amount of resources freed up is breed more. Its what we've evolved to do, civilisation is a relatively new thing compared to centuries of biological evolution and our base drives and evolutionary instincts are just not adjusted to modern civilisation.
Humans are still just animals, we wear more clothes and make more noise, but we're still animals and those base instincts ultimately still guide our lives.
See Singlecoil, we're discussing it... It's not the topic that's wrong here.
If only Malthus wasn't a dirty word in modern conversations. I wholly agree by the way, although there's a well documented phenomenon in the animal world that when populations are exposed to enough stress they cease to successfully breed. Funnily enough we're seeing dropping fertility and birth rates in the affluent West and so I foresee us going the way of the bees, where enough pressures act on our societies that they fall into complete collapse...The thing is, that will make SFA difference in real terms. 15-20 million dead in a country with low population growth (0.6% per year).
Even if there was random selection, 3 in 8 people selected in a lottery based on population density per sq mile perfectly adjusted to all variables, all it will do is delay overpopulation, not stop it. What people will do with the huge amount of resources freed up is breed more. Its what we've evolved to do, civilisation is a relatively new thing compared to centuries of biological evolution and our base drives and evolutionary instincts are just not adjusted to modern civilisation.
Humans are still just animals, we wear more clothes and make more noise, but we're still animals and those base instincts ultimately still guide our lives.
See Singlecoil, we're discussing it... It's not the topic that's wrong here.
j_4m said:
captain_cynic said:
I get that you're joking, but that aside.
The thing is, that will make SFA difference in real terms. 15-20 million dead in a country with low population growth (0.6% per year).
Even if there was random selection, 3 in 8 people selected in a lottery based on population density per sq mile perfectly adjusted to all variables, all it will do is delay overpopulation, not stop it. What people will do with the huge amount of resources freed up is breed more. Its what we've evolved to do, civilisation is a relatively new thing compared to centuries of biological evolution and our base drives and evolutionary instincts are just not adjusted to modern civilisation.
Humans are still just animals, we wear more clothes and make more noise, but we're still animals and those base instincts ultimately still guide our lives.
See Singlecoil, we're discussing it... It's not the topic that's wrong here.
If only Malthus wasn't a dirty word in modern conversations. I wholly agree by the way, although there's a well documented phenomenon in the animal world that when populations are exposed to enough stress they cease to successfully breed. Funnily enough we're seeing dropping fertility and birth rates in the affluent West and so I foresee us going the way of the bees, where enough pressures act on our societies that they fall into complete collapse...The thing is, that will make SFA difference in real terms. 15-20 million dead in a country with low population growth (0.6% per year).
Even if there was random selection, 3 in 8 people selected in a lottery based on population density per sq mile perfectly adjusted to all variables, all it will do is delay overpopulation, not stop it. What people will do with the huge amount of resources freed up is breed more. Its what we've evolved to do, civilisation is a relatively new thing compared to centuries of biological evolution and our base drives and evolutionary instincts are just not adjusted to modern civilisation.
Humans are still just animals, we wear more clothes and make more noise, but we're still animals and those base instincts ultimately still guide our lives.
See Singlecoil, we're discussing it... It's not the topic that's wrong here.
Someone like Malthus can be discussed without being seen as a supporter. I think Malthus has somewhat of an idea about preventative checks, but the wrong idea of what they were. A better "preventative check" would be a good quality of life where there isn't a huge impetus to breed for financial security later in life. I think this is why birth rates are declining in the developed world.
The further up Maslow's hierarchy of needs we can push the impetus to breed, the lower the birth rate gets. Here in the UK kids provide a psychological need (I.E. we want to have them) rather than a physical need (I.E. will provide for the parent's later in life).
captain_cynic said:
I'm of the opinion that you can discuss something without expunging or sharing the opinion of it. So I generally have few taboo topics and never get called names (it's all about how you enunciate something).
Someone like Malthus can be discussed without being seen as a supporter. I think Malthus has somewhat of an idea about preventative checks, but the wrong idea of what they were. A better "preventative check" would be a good quality of life where there isn't a huge impetus to breed for financial security later in life. I think this is why birth rates are declining in the developed world.
The further up Maslow's hierarchy of needs we can push the impetus to breed, the lower the birth rate gets. Here in the UK kids provide a psychological need (I.E. we want to have them) rather than a physical need (I.E. will provide for the parent's later in life).
But unfortunately if you use quality of life as a preventative you then end up with diversion in birth rates, again what we're seeing here in the West; the poorer, less educated people have more kids, the richer less. That said we should obviously aspire to making quality of life improvements across all sections of society, perhaps there is a threshold where we can elevate the least fortunate to that they no longer feel the drive to pump out kids, or at least not so many.Someone like Malthus can be discussed without being seen as a supporter. I think Malthus has somewhat of an idea about preventative checks, but the wrong idea of what they were. A better "preventative check" would be a good quality of life where there isn't a huge impetus to breed for financial security later in life. I think this is why birth rates are declining in the developed world.
The further up Maslow's hierarchy of needs we can push the impetus to breed, the lower the birth rate gets. Here in the UK kids provide a psychological need (I.E. we want to have them) rather than a physical need (I.E. will provide for the parent's later in life).
I'm sure removing some of the conditions that allow such huge populations would work quite well, but as the ethically unsound positive checks; less mass production, less industrialisation, more personal autonomy, necessary self-sufficiency.
j_4m said:
But unfortunately if you use quality of life as a preventative you then end up with diversion in birth rates, again what we're seeing here in the West; the poorer, less educated people have more kids, the richer less.
Pretty much the same comparison I make between poor and rich countries, same thing on a different scale. j_4m said:
That said we should obviously aspire to making quality of life improvements across all sections of society, perhaps there is a threshold where we can elevate the least fortunate to that they no longer feel the drive to pump out kids, or at least not so many.
That is the question really, how do you change the reason people have children? Not an easy answer. We're still biologically wired to want children, or at least sex. One thing that will and won't be in the spirit of this thread, we need to cut or at least scale back the welfare given for children. Not just to the poor, but to the middle class and rich as well. However the move will be as popular as mustard gas. If we want to help families, work on reducing their costs rather than just giving out money to compensate for it.
AstonZagato said:
I unknowingly hired a vegan. When I found out, I phoned him to warn him that I shoot, the senior partner shoots and that we have a chef who prepares food for all our employees (but no veggie option). I didn't want him to feel excluded or walk in to a situation that made him uncomfortable.
He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Hello AZ. I really don't want to come across all contrary but this anecdote is redundant.He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Vegan refers to a very specific lifestyle that precludes eating animal products or causing unnecessary suffering, there's no grey area here. It's not like saying "I hired someone who says he likes pudding".
I'm not judging the bloke, he should certainly do whatever he likes and your description of him makes him sound like a decent person but, you know, he's not a vegan.
br d said:
AstonZagato said:
I unknowingly hired a vegan. When I found out, I phoned him to warn him that I shoot, the senior partner shoots and that we have a chef who prepares food for all our employees (but no veggie option). I didn't want him to feel excluded or walk in to a situation that made him uncomfortable.
He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Hello AZ. I really don't want to come across all contrary but this anecdote is redundant.He was super cool about it - he will eat meat if someone's guest and it is put in front of him. Only chooses to be vegan when it is within his control. Has no issue with shooting - much better on animal welfare than farming.
I was still a bit worried. But he was true to his word. Almost. Every day he orders the meatiest dish. Sitting in a restaurant in Paris he ordered foie gras and lamb. In a first class lounge in an airport he had pork chops followed by a hamburger. He eats more meat than most people I know!
Vegan refers to a very specific lifestyle that precludes eating animal products or causing unnecessary suffering, there's no grey area here. It's not like saying "I hired someone who says he likes pudding".
I'm not judging the bloke, he should certainly do whatever he likes and your description of him makes him sound like a decent person but, you know, he's not a vegan.
captain_cynic said:
That is the question really, how do you change the reason people have children? Not an easy answer. We're still biologically wired to want children, or at least sex.
We are also biologically wired to die, and in affluent countries the birth rate is increasingly often below the replacement rate.Dr Jekyll said:
We are also biologically wired to die, and in affluent countries the birth rate is increasingly often below the replacement rate.
Yes, we could have allowed our population to shrink naturally to sustainable levels - about 20M - and lived happily ever after. But that would have reduced the demand for housing and thus reduced the value of rich people's portfolios, not to mention triggering the death of the welfare state Ponzi scheme and all the ensuing government fallout. So instead various governments opened the borders, cancelled the census, and started paying immigrants with higher birth rates to come here and outbreed us.
vetrof said:
Trump will not be the worst president in the first half of this century.
When Obama was elected it was rightly celebrated that truly anyone could become president.
We now know that, unfortunaty, anyone can become president.
Trump is just the first of a potential reign of morons.
Unpopular or Precognition?When Obama was elected it was rightly celebrated that truly anyone could become president.
We now know that, unfortunaty, anyone can become president.
Trump is just the first of a potential reign of morons.
paua said:
DoubleD said:
Maybe once you hit 50 you should be put down, that would reduce the earths population.
Logan's Run (limit was 30)Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff