this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
28 points (80.4% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8090 readers
35 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.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



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

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Test should be required to own dogs and cats and people shouldn’t be able to own more than three pets max. The same way you need to pass a drivers test in order to operate vehicles and more advanced drivers test for more advanced and complicated vehicle, that needs to apply to pet ownership as well.

Most people can’t handle owning pets, they are incapable or don’t have the resources to do so. This isn’t even including the neglectful and abusive pet owners who don’t maintain the hygiene of the pet or property the pet is in.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"not EVERY nation on the planet is so overpopulated they cannot support themselves!" is a hell of a rationale to encourage generally increasing birthrates.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its the bare minimum required. Birth rates should be above replacement rate. Currently they are not. I'm in favour of raising birthrates for many reasons but i think the contention is on the sustainability aspect which is why I choose to point out that most countries are currently in a position to sustainably increase their population.

If you want to argue that china/Nigeria/india should not have an increasing birth rate then I'd agree because that is not currently sustainable. Unsustainable population growth forces war or famine. At the moment china can trade for food but the moment something changes and they can't they are forced to make a choice. The generally increasing birth rates are from countries that can't sustain themselves. I dont think they should have as high of a birth rate as they currently do.

I'm in favour overall world birthrates increasing but it should be growing throughout the world sustainably instead of booming in the poorest most resource starved places.

I dont care for the panic of different ethnicities within a country. I think once the overall conditions improve to where the birthrates raise all the ethnicities I'm that country will roughly balance out to similar birthrates and they will mix anyway.

I dont think any of that id crazy or shocking rationale.

[–] DomeGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

You're posting growth as if it were an inherent good, instead of a surefire recipe for future catastrophe.

My assertion against the correctness of "growth is good" is the finite size of earth. I'd like to hear your assertion for that theorum's correctness.