this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
64 points (63.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6404 readers
162 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Continuing to increase the world population is absolutely nuts.

*I'm not interested in gradual natural declines from whatever factors. 2 max implemented now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I'm honestly in favor of it. Before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying how China did it was the right way.

But we are barreling towards a very unsustainable future. This century is going to be very dire for these next generations. We simply do not have the resources.

There are some great "hacks" I'll call them. GMOs, urban farming, etc, but those just treat the symptoms.

I'm not having kids and this is one of the big reasons why. My family thinks I'm crazy but from my point of view I'm just bringing kids into this world to suffer, so if I do that then it's only for selfish reasons. And with that line of thought I think people who willingly have more than, oh, let's say 3 kids are selfish.

It's harsh, but seriously look around. It's unmaintainable, we can't keep going at infinite growth.

Unfortunately it will never be implemented because there is no way to do it without bias. Sterilizations have always had bias, along race, class, religion, and those I'm against. This is more me yelling into the void "For the love of God stop having kids! You do not need 5 kids! We can't continue with this exponential curve on this one tiny planet!"

[–] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The problem has never been the amount of resources. The problem is distribution of resources is heavily skewed to a few.

[–] Damage@slrpnk.net 4 points 11 months ago

If the abundant resources are obtained through unbridled agriculture (deforestation) and excessive amounts of ecosystem-destroying pesticides, maybe they're not sustainable

[–] lawrence@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I mean, bias is a problem, but there's an even bigger issue. What happens if a couple has a third child? It may not seem like it, but this is a major problem.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 11 months ago

One of many problems unfortunately. How do you decide what to do? Forcibly remove the child? Relocate? Tax them more?

What if it was an accident? How do you prove it was? There's no way to do it, and another reason it'll never happen.

However if you have 5 kids and it happens again.... Ehhh I'm willing to say that you did not have 6 accidents.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, putting this into law would either require the government to pay for mandatory abortions or mandatory sterilization after the second child.

[–] XTL@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Or some serious financial repercussions. Maybe extra tax that goes towards more support for people with fewer children (or their children).

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Then that's class based bias, rich would simply pay for it while the poor get poorer. It's a fair thought, but the waters get muddy all the way down

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah, the system would have to be changed by miles for this to apply evenly among classes, and by extension, races. Some assurance of equal levels of education, resources, and access to medical care to take care of all roadblocks to having exactly the amount of children you want to have. Edit: and that would mean free (as in uninhibited financially or by laws) access to abortion regardless of situation.

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago

You get a max of two, after that benefits are split between the number of children?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

And yet the population graph is curving toward a plateau and new generations are so much smaller than previous that many places are more in danger of a rapid drop in population (in a few decades, assuming nothing changes). This is a solved problem: our best bet is to rucsh the developing world toward development

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Not having kids works on an individual level, but without worldwide implementation/cooperation we just continue on and on growing the population. Thus this post.