Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

Plenty of environmentalists recommend drastic decrease in the earth's population. Hence widespread push for abortion and contraception in third world countries with booming populations.

Since I'm rate limited for my controversial posts, responses to comments are here:

It's politically incorrect for Western nations to push for mandatory abortion and sterilization. So, instead they adopt softer means of "legalization" and "education".

While killing and preventing children can help adults not starve when the government is restricting their access to essentials so as to generate sympathy from Western countries that are causing the instability in the first place, there are perhaps other ways to address these humanitarian crises that do not hinge on ending human life and causing population implosions.

Still rate limited (censored), so this is in response to chickenfries' claim that even the Vatican does not consider abortion genocide.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/16/pope-fr...

“It is fashionable, or at least usual, that when in the first few months of a pregnancy doctors do studies to see if the child is healthy or has something, the first idea is: ‘Let’s send it away,’” the pope said. “We do the same as the Nazis to maintain the purity of the race, but with white gloves on.”

What's the point of a pseudonym, then?

Countless topics that are not, in and of themselves, controversial have become incredibly politicized. And this is an issue that seems to only be getting worse over time. Let's take a not so hypothetical hypothetical based on something that recently happened. Not long ago there was a paper published that, using a novel method of measurement, suggested that oceans were heating some 60% faster than thought.

It turns out there were key errors in this paper, spotted just hours after publication, that made their conclusion (though not their novel form of measurement) unsupportable [1][2]. A couple of sources there since, as usual, the shocking headline will get a billion clicks, and the corrections maybe a dozen. But whatever, mistakes happen and that is not the point. But imagine now for a minute that this paper was instead going in the opposite direction and using a novel measurement had determined that the oceans were actually warming some 60% slower than thought, but it turns out that due to mistakes that conclusion was not supportable. Think about the backlash there and what would almost certainly end up resulting in personal attacks and suggestion of untoward motivation from the authors.

That's nasty business, but things that should just be 'science as usual' have started to become things people take deeply personal. I would feel quite uncomfortable publishing things that go against the grain on a number of topics. And this is before we get into things that ought be controversial. Increasing intellectual conservatism means such topics have gone from controversial to outright taboo.

[1] - https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-...

[2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14...

----

Edit: As a perfect example of this, already in this very thread a person has stated an opposition to such journal because "I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been." 'Seeking recourse and investigating the motives' often translates to finding the witch. Publish the 'wrong' idea and suddenly it's time to face the inquisitor. Publish the 'wrong' idea and make a mistake, and the inquisitor needn't waste his time - straight to the gallows with you.

How is telling starving people not to have 8 kids per woman and providing them with free condoms "genocide" exactly?