Post your unpopular opinions

[azgreg]

I used to think the world was overpopulated but then I realized that it was actually undereducated.

If we increased education opportunities in developing nations, population growth would dramatically level out.

This has been shown to be unequivocally the case: when education levels increase, birth rate drops.

But the world IS over populated.

Idiocracy is a documentary.

[pc in NM]

There's more than enough resources for the world to easily support even twice the population it currently has. It's just that human ego and capitalism has made that impossible

The world population is ~7.9 billion!!! WTF are you talking about???

[Chicat]

I used to think the world was overpopulated but then I realized that it was actually undereducated.

If we increased education opportunities in developing nations, population growth would dramatically level out.

This has been shown to be unequivocally the case: when education levels increase, birth rate drops.

But the world IS over populated.

The problem is less that there are too many humans and more that what makes our lives easier and more fulfilling is incredibly destructive to the planet. If we all lived more in tandem with nature and less as it’s adversary we could sustain 10B people on the planet. And I actually think we will eventually get there.

[84Cat]

The US population growth is mainly from immigrants

According to the United Nations, most of the world's population growth is in poor countries. The 47 least developed countries are expected to see their collective population nearly double from roughly one billion to 1.9 billion by 2050.3 That's thanks to a fertility rate of 4.3 per woman. Some countries continue to see their populations explode, such as Niger with a 2019 fertility rate of 6.49, Angola at 6.16, and Mali at 6.01.

In contrast, the fertility rate in many developed countries was below replacement value (more loss of people than those born to replace them). As of 2017, the fertility rate in the United States was 1.87.4 Others include Singapore at 0.83, Macau at 0.95, Lithuania at 1.59, the Czech Republic at 1.45, Japan at 1.41, and Canada at 1.6.5

https://www.thoughtco.com/current-world ... on-1435270

[Merkin]

There's more than enough resources for the world to easily support even twice the population it currently has. It's just that human ego and capitalism has made that impossible

[Carcassdragger]

There's more than enough resources for the world to easily support even twice the population it currently has. It's just that human ego and capitalism has made that impossible

The world population is ~7.9 billion!!! WTF are you talking about???

Yeah, no shit. Just a shockingly foolish statement when our natural resources have been completely ovverrun, our ocean is depleted, we are wallowing in our own filth, and the planet's natural processes are shutting down.

[Carcassdragger]

I used to think the world was overpopulated but then I realized that it was actually undereducated.

If we increased education opportunities in developing nations, population growth would dramatically level out.

This has been shown to be unequivocally the case: when education levels increase, birth rate drops.

But the world IS over populated.

The problem is less that there are too many humans and more that what makes our lives easier and more fulfilling is incredibly destructive to the planet. If we all lived more in tandem with nature and less as it’s adversary we could sustain 10B people on the planet. And I actually think we will eventually get there.

I dont think it's possible to live "in tandem with nature" for long with 10B people on the planet.

[azgreg]

Everybody on the planet can fit in Texas.

[ASUHATER!]

It's entirely possible if we don't consume at the rate that Americans consume everything at and we actually cooperate. I can't find it now but I remember reading a National Geographic article maybe 6 years ago that said that if we just cut our consumption to more reasonable sane levels the planet could easily support 20 billion+ people.

[dovecanyoncat]

Everybody on the planet can fit in Texas.

All the assholes anyway.

[Chicat]

I used to think the world was overpopulated but then I realized that it was actually undereducated.

If we increased education opportunities in developing nations, population growth would dramatically level out.

This has been shown to be unequivocally the case: when education levels increase, birth rate drops.

But the world IS over populated.

The problem is less that there are too many humans and more that what makes our lives easier and more fulfilling is incredibly destructive to the planet. If we all lived more in tandem with nature and less as it’s adversary we could sustain 10B people on the planet. And I actually think we will eventually get there.

I dont think it's possible to live "in tandem with nature" for long with 10B people on the planet.

Sure it is. It just doesn’t look like the Earth looks now. Besides changes in energy and food sources, we’d need to highly concentrate ourselves in urban environments while eliminating sprawl. Then allow much of suburbia, exurbia, and rural areas to return to nature. Farms are largely automated at this point, so people don’t really need to live around them.

As for food and energy, we’d need to be far more sustainable than we are now. Aquaponic vertical farms can cut our need for large swaths of land for food, and our use of natural waterways for fish. We’d also need to develop artificial nutrient-rich supplemental food sources (Soylent Green minus the people). Energy will probably need to be a mixture of geothermal and nuclear until we move into the next phase of sourcing (which I have no idea what that is yet unless it’s Fusion). Eliminating suburban sprawl would lessen our need for vehicular traffic drastically, and most travel would probably be done by high speed train.

With our current technology and unwillingness to advance out of being fossil fuel-burning, sprawling leeches, I agree that 10 Billion humans is unsustainable. But we could most certainly advance numerous technologies that could transform our society into one where the Earth can sustain our population without stressing its balance. Will we? No idea, but I hope we will.

[Merkin]

It's entirely possible if we don't consume at the rate that Americans consume everything at and we actually cooperate. I can't find it now but I remember reading a National Geographic article maybe 6 years ago that said that if we just cut our consumption to more reasonable sane levels the planet could easily support 20 billion+ people.

And quit throwing away perfectly good food, and providing price supports to farmers not to use all their acreage.

[RichardCranium]

no country for old men is a bad movie.
not bad in a good way
bad in a bad way
it's one of the most overrated movies I've ever had to sit through.

Kinda weird that you didn't post this in the thread that we're currently talking about this very movie, but hey... good stuff. You've done a lot here.

imagine posting an unpopular opinion in the unpopular opinion thread....what nerve that guy has, amirite.
didnt feel like discussing the film, nor hijacking a discussion where everyone already loves the movie, so figured it fit better here.

I know this is old, but for what it's worth, I agree with you, PoM

[pc in NM]

It's entirely possible if we don't consume at the rate that Americans consume everything at and we actually cooperate. I can't find it now but I remember reading a National Geographic article maybe 6 years ago that said that if we just cut our consumption to more reasonable sane levels the planet could easily support 20 billion+ people.

And quit throwing away perfectly good food, and providing price supports to farmers not to use all their acreage.

https://www.livescience.com/16493-peopl ... pport.html

Earth's capacity

Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people.

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

[UAEebs86]

^^^^^^

Not arguing for or against, but I'll bet back in the 70's there were studies saying 4 or 5 billion was the max.

[dovecanyoncat]

Ice fishing absolutely does lead to prostitution. Only dimwit libtards miss the connections: ice fishing>ice dancing>dancing upright>sex>prostitution.

[dovecanyoncat]

10 billion people living without guns and V8s? No, no. Mass murder and NASCAR are important components of human ecology. Don't be short sighted and miss the big picture.

[Carcassdragger]

I used to think the world was overpopulated but then I realized that it was actually undereducated.

If we increased education opportunities in developing nations, population growth would dramatically level out.

This has been shown to be unequivocally the case: when education levels increase, birth rate drops.

But the world IS over populated.

The problem is less that there are too many humans and more that what makes our lives easier and more fulfilling is incredibly destructive to the planet. If we all lived more in tandem with nature and less as it’s adversary we could sustain 10B people on the planet. And I actually think we will eventually get there.

I dont think it's possible to live "in tandem with nature" for long with 10B people on the planet.

Sure it is. It just doesn’t look like the Earth looks now. Besides changes in energy and food sources, we’d need to highly concentrate ourselves in urban environments while eliminating sprawl. Then allow much of suburbia, exurbia, and rural areas to return to nature. Farms are largely automated at this point, so people don’t really need to live around them.

As for food and energy, we’d need to be far more sustainable than we are now. Aquaponic vertical farms can cut our need for large swaths of land for food, and our use of natural waterways for fish. We’d also need to develop artificial nutrient-rich supplemental food sources (Soylent Green minus the people). Energy will probably need to be a mixture of geothermal and nuclear until we move into the next phase of sourcing (which I have no idea what that is yet unless it’s Fusion). Eliminating suburban sprawl would lessen our need for vehicular traffic drastically, and most travel would probably be done by high speed train.

With our current technology and unwillingness to advance out of being fossil fuel-burning, sprawling leeches, I agree that 10 Billion humans is unsustainable. But we could most certainly advance numerous technologies that could transform our society into one where the Earth can sustain our population without stressing its balance. Will we? No idea, but I hope we will.

This is not a place I'd ever want to live in and I don't think there would be much nature in this scenario.

[Chicat]

This is not a place I'd ever want to live in and I don't think there would be much nature in this scenario.

RE: Nature… did you miss where I talked about letting nature take back over our current suburban, ex-urban, and rural sprawl?

As far as you living there, that’s fine. You’d be long dead before we could achieve any of this. And I’m sure if you described strip mall culture to someone in the 1600s they’d be aghast at how humanity lives today and would say no thanks even with our modern amenities, and yet, here we are.

Entrenched mindsets where what we have today is the only way we can live is what is keeping us from a sustainable future. Is the only alternative in your mind to kill off a couple billion people so you can feel better about burning a gallon of fossil fuel to get some Applebees?

[Carcassdragger]

This is not a place I'd ever want to live in and I don't think there would be much nature in this scenario.

RE: Nature… did you miss where I talked about letting nature take back over our current suburban, ex-urban, and rural sprawl?

As far as you living there, that’s fine. You’d be long dead before we could achieve any of this. And I’m sure if you described strip mall culture to someone in the 1600s they’d be aghast at how humanity lives today and would say no thanks even with our modern amenities, and yet, here we are.

Entrenched mindsets where what we have today is the only way we can live is what is keeping us from a sustainable future. Is the only alternative in your mind to kill off a couple billion people so you can feel better about burning a gallon of fossil fuel to get some Applebees?

Where did I advocate killing off a couple billion people? Jeez.

No, I think we should support foreign policy that provides for education and family planning.

Interesting to note that in 1984 the world held the first world population conference in Mexico City, because everyone knew that the earth's population would eventually read a point of no sustainability. Instead of taking a leadership role, the Reagan administration stated that the USA s position was that we would not provide any economic aid to countries that practiced legalized abortion. Not consistent with family values, you see.

As for living stacked on top of each other in endless layered piles of humanity, I'm just thinking you're used to a different paradigm than I am. I dont live that way and never want to.

[Chicat]

Where did I advocate killing off a couple billion people? Jeez.

If you think the world is already overpopulated and you don’t want to enact changes that would change our societies in ways that would allow for 8 billion people to live sustainably, I’m not sure what the alternative is besides reducing our population drastically.

[CatsbyAZ]

There's more than enough resources for the world to easily support even twice the population it currently has. It's just that human ego and capitalism has made that impossible

I don't know how anybody can really believe this. Even in more agrarian areas in impoverished regions of SE Asia, the amount of humans living lower impact lifestyles is still damaging to the natural habit needed for advanced biodiversity.

And to the post claiming how the whole planet can fit into Texas, those bastardized calculations incorporate the Earth's uninhabitable land as well - Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, the Australian Outback. Much of Earth's dry surface cannot support inhabitation of mankind.

[pc in NM]

Where did I advocate killing off a couple billion people? Jeez.

If you think the world is already overpopulated and you don’t want to enact changes that would change our societies in ways that would allow for 8 billion people to live sustainably, I’m not sure what the alternative is besides reducing our population drastically.

IMNSHO, "we" (humanity) aren't going to do either of these options, by choice. We're sailing into a state of global warming that will drastically alter both the way we live, AND drastically reduce the size of human population.

[azgreg]

[UAEebs86]

Time for Carousel!

[Longhorned]

I'm in a shitload of trouble right now because I finally opened my mouth to my wife with the observation that I need a break from my entire life being dominated by every demographic other than North American straight men. Look, I get it. North American straight men have been assholes beyond belief to women and gay men, and I want no part of that. But it's gotten to the point where I spend literally no time with North American straight men. It's possible that my daughter has never met one other than me. Literally everyone in her life is a woman, usually married to another woman, or if not, a man married to another man. Or her male teachers at an international foreign language immersion school, who are wonderful human beings, but they believe in theater and ballet and gymnastics at a level that really shouldn't be construed as any kind of mainstream view. Then there's all our gay male friends, who are so gentle and refined that they fully seal the deal on my appearance as a complete and total oaf.

My kid is becoming really aware that there's something off about her dad. While this view may be completely valid from the perspective that I am, after all, Longhorned, it shouldn't pertain to my propensity for watching sports, burping, and spending too much time on the toilet before leaving with a long strand of toilet paper hanging beneath my tattered bathrobe.

It's the NBA playoffs. I can't pretend I don't know about that. I really want to get my kid into it, and share it with her without her thinking it's something that nobody else but me would ever do.

I'm up against Easter dinner tomorrow with my wife, kid, and two pairs of Lesbians and their daughters, where everything I think and say from my honest point of view should be shamefully hidden away, along with my attempts to check scores on my phone. I told my wife I don't want to go because I just need a break to be myself. She got furious and left the house to get her hair cut by a gay man who she'll tell what I said, and then come home with further affirmation that I'm an oaf to the core who needs to apologize on my knees for my insensitivity.

[Longhorned]

My wife came home from the hairdresser's and we talked. She said she thinks my views are abhorrent, but she accepts them. And she insists that I'm welcome and expected by all at this year's Easter Sunday, and that it's not unknown for some extended families to have a straight man in them.

My question is: How welcome am I? Am I so welcome for who I really am that I can ask for, say, the playoff games on the TV in the background? Or is that showing just a little too much of my inner nature, instead of drowning my inner nature in a sequence of conversations that would affirm that life is all car trips to the supermarket, wall sconces, and non-native plants that need more water?

[CatsbyAZ]

My kid is becoming really aware that there's something off about her dad. While this view may be completely valid from the perspective that I am, after all, Longhorned, it shouldn't pertain to my propensity for watching sports, burping, and spending too much time on the toilet before leaving with a long strand of toilet paper hanging beneath my tattered bathrobe.

So as a 90s kid I think what kept me from drawing the same conclusion about my Dad's generation is that so much of their "letdown behavior" played out on 90s TV. Tim Allen's manly one-upmanship on Home Improvement. Al Bundy's crassness on Married with Children. John Goodman's sloppiness on Roseann. Homer Simpson's D'oh-ness.

My Dad didn't take it as far as those guys but around the house there was kind've this living agreement with my Mom that as long as he brought home a paycheck, mowed the lawn, made sure the cars ran, and drove his sons to little league, he was allowed to let himself go in the way of bathrobes, mustaches, griping about our Legos on the carpet, and buying as many Craftsman tools as he wanted. I guess its too late to tell her more Dad's than you think are like Peter from Family Guy.

[Chicat]

Is there a straight White male support group? Other than Fox News and NASCAR of course…

[Longhorned]

My kid is becoming really aware that there's something off about her dad. While this view may be completely valid from the perspective that I am, after all, Longhorned, it shouldn't pertain to my propensity for watching sports, burping, and spending too much time on the toilet before leaving with a long strand of toilet paper hanging beneath my tattered bathrobe.

So as a 90s kid I think what kept me from drawing the same conclusion about my Dad's generation is that so much of their "letdown behavior" played out on 90s TV. Tim Allen's manly one-upmanship on Home Improvement. Al Bundy's crassness on Married with Children. John Goodman's sloppiness on Roseann. Homer Simpson's D'oh-ness.

My Dad didn't take it as far as those guys but around the house there was kind've this living agreement with my Mom that as long as he brought home a paycheck, mowed the lawn, made sure the cars ran, and drove his sons to little league, he was allowed to let himself go in the way of bathrobes, mustaches, griping about our Legos on the carpet, and buying as many Craftsman tools as he wanted. I guess its too late to tell her more Dad's than you think are like Peter from Family Guy.

For me the 90s lives on in the NBA on TNT, which is a show for men who came of age then, and still have all those antiquated views, including about basketball. Outside of that TV show, and this board, I know nobody in actual life whose brain my brain connects with in a non-historicist intellectual way. My best hope is if a conversation turns to Boeing or food or art installations, which it never does. Women and gay men are really into furloughs, oleanders, and movies like the China Syndrome. I've never seen the China Syndrome, so I check my phone just to see the score, and I'm back to being uncouth.

[Merkin]

My folks went to see The China Syndrome the same day as the 3 Mile Island incident.

[CatsbyAZ]

For me the 90s lives on in the NBA on TNT, which is a show for men who came of age then, and still have all those antiquated views, including about basketball. Outside of that TV show, and this board, I know nobody in actual life whose brain my brain connects with in a non-historicist intellectual way. My best hope is if a conversation turns to Boeing or food or art installations, which it never does. Women and gay men are really into furloughs, oleanders, and movies like the China Syndrome. I've never seen the China Syndrome, so I check my phone just to see the score, and I'm back to being uncouth.

If you'd like to make an indelible aging Boomer male showing in front of your carefully fashioned women and gay friends, ask if China Syndrome is "a documentary about the Wuhan Virus?" (laugh track ensues, daughter's face turns red)

[dovecanyoncat]

Without getting into definitions of masculinity, I have faith in you Dr. Longhorned, faith that you can curate a nuanced liberal redneckdom among diverse populations without having to live in the closet. Of course, you must liberate yourself before you can demand unconditional support for that small subset of troglodyte behaviors that makes you you. I have trouble doing this myself, but I look around and everybody else in the fucking world does it, so why shouldn't I?

Go forth and be Longhorned. And do it for the rest of us as well.

[Chicat]

If you told your wife that having to hold in your farts and pretend not to be interested in male sports was turning you into a lesbian, would she be happy or sad?

[Longhorned]

If you told your wife that having to hold in your farts and pretend not to be interested in male sports was turning you into a lesbian, would she be happy or sad?

Unsure. I told my wife today that I wanted to start bringing our kid to games, and that I'd like it if the aunties stopped running interference and tried to save my kid from me every time I was trying to involve her in sporting events. And that I wanted to open the possibility of her playing sports if it captures her interests. My wife looked blindsided.

She said, "Look, I understand that you belong to a segment of the population...."

I interrupted, "I don't belong to a segment of the population. I'm not a Zoroastrian. It's literally the most mainstream thing a dad would ever do."

She said, "Well, is it okay if I find it abhorrent"?

[dovecanyoncat]

"Well, is it okay if I find it abhorrent"?

"Certainly, why wouldn't it be"?

"Doesn't that matter to you"?

"Of course, everything that is important to you matters to me."

"But you still want to do it? How on earth can you reconcile that"?

"Baby, it always matters but it isn't going to change anything."

Then curl a plug of Copenhagen against your gum and give her a peck on the cheek on the way out the door with your daughter.

[Chicat]

If you told your wife that having to hold in your farts and pretend not to be interested in male sports was turning you into a lesbian, would she be happy or sad?

Unsure. I told my wife today that I wanted to start bringing our kid to games, and that I'd like it if the aunties stopped running interference and tried to save my kid from me every time I was trying to involve her in sporting events. And that I wanted to open the possibility of her playing sports if it captures her interests. My wife looked blindsided.

She said, "Look, I understand that you belong to a segment of the population...."

I interrupted, "I don't belong to a segment of the population. I'm not a Zoroastrian. It's literally the most mainstream thing a dad would ever do."

She said, "Well, is it okay if I find it abhorrent"?

You should get massively into the WNBA.

And throw out some suggestions on which Subaru hatchback would work best to tailgate at the games (hint: it’s the Forrester).

[pc in NM]

If you told your wife that having to hold in your farts and pretend not to be interested in male sports was turning you into a lesbian, would she be happy or sad?

Unsure. I told my wife today that I wanted to start bringing our kid to games, and that I'd like it if the aunties stopped running interference and tried to save my kid from me every time I was trying to involve her in sporting events. And that I wanted to open the possibility of her playing sports if it captures her interests. My wife looked blindsided.

She said, "Look, I understand that you belong to a segment of the population...."

I interrupted, "I don't belong to a segment of the population. I'm not a Zoroastrian. It's literally the most mainstream thing a dad would ever do."

She said, "Well, is it okay if I find it abhorrent"?

If I understand, your wife is disgusted by the possibility of her female child being involved in athletics?? I hope I misunderstood your account!

Sorry dude, if accurate, that's tantamount to child abuse in my book - and I find THAT to be "abhorrent".

So sorry for your dilemma, dude!!!

[Longhorned]

Sure, but my wife got our kid into gymnastics classes, and classes for something else called parkour. And our kid loves it. The line is drawn at the border of toxic masculinity, which is a land dominated by ball sports. But even if that were true, and somehow even Steve Kerr and Golden State Warriors belonged to that, I still say there's no fundamental difference between women gymnastics coaches and women basketball coaches. Maybe that's unpopular but I'm not giving that view up.

[84Cat]

Gymnastics is brutal. Our daughter was a competitive gymnast and that was far tougher than anything I ever did. Heck, girls were getting surgery as young as 9 on her team

[Carcassdragger]

I've worked with high school athletes for 26 years.

In my humble opinion, extra curricular sports are just one activity that should be offered to kids. Athletics are no more important than band, art, or activity clubs, but they are ALL important because kids will form other identities outside of just classroom life and if they're not offered other activities they'll often find an identity which is destructive.

Athletics can be a very good and constructive influence but its critical that, in order for this to happen, kids have good and supportive (in the right way) coaches and parents. I've seen a few situations in which this isn't the case though.

I think its a shame that your wife takes such a dim view of kids sports and doesnt recognize the good influence school sports can be.

[Merkin]

Even rec sports are highly competitive. Unless you have a superb athlete as a child, prepare for lots of unhappiness and disappointment.

Saying that, I did my part in coaching my kids to just have fun, and not worry about winning. After having my youngest son on a biddy basketball team, and the only play was give the ball to Carlos, I decided to go into coaching. Most kids on my oldest son's team did not score a point. Carlos never did as well in high school as he did in biddy basketball.

My goal as a coach, was to get every single player to score. And finally, the very last game, I told the team to give the ball to Nicky, the only player who didn't score yet. I pulled any kid who did not pass the ball to Nicky. Finally, this slow fat uncoordinated kid finally did score.

True story, Nicky became a scholarship football player. I felt I had a very small part in giving him a little bit of confidence.

And we didn't win a single game.

My oldest son, now mid 30's, still remembers that terrible coach that just wanted to win in rec league.

I have no problem with club teams, and schools teams trying just to win. Rec teams should just be for fun though.

[Longhorned]

All great posts above.

I think winning and losing is important, and having fun instead of obsessing about winning. The other thing for me is winning and losing with and against competitors directly, instead of just getting judged for how pretty you looked when you did it. Unlike in those girly sports, you get that in ball sports.

[Chicat]

I’m coaching U10 soccer. My biggest concern is making sure every kid gets equal time on offense and defense and gets enough time on the field (at least 50% of the game).

But I also want to win. Both for the kids and to reward the work we’ve put in. So I also played our best players late in the second half to preserve a lead and we ended up winning 2-1. I would hope that the parents understand. If they don’t, not much I can do about that. But if their kid is disinterested, uncoordinated, distracted, and comes to practice unprepared and unwilling to work (if they come at all), they’re not going to be in at crunch time. And if anyone asks why little Mason wasn’t in a lot in the second half I’m going to tell them that he’s not very good (yet) and isn’t all that interested in putting in the effort to get better.

There are lessons in kids athletics, both for the players and their parents.

[Longhorned]

Exactly. As long is the hard-working player taking the minutes isn't the coach's own kid. That's what my dad did when he coached our teams. I mean Jesus Christ.

[dovecanyoncat]

Sure, but my wife got our kid into gymnastics classes, and classes for something else called parkour. And our kid loves it. The line is drawn at the border of toxic masculinity, which is a land dominated by ball sports. But even if that were true, and somehow even Steve Kerr and Golden State Warriors belonged to that, I still say there's no fundamental difference between women gymnastics coaches and women basketball coaches. Maybe that's unpopular but I'm not giving that view up.

Yes, parkour, by all means, given how safe and regulated and outdoorsy and international and popular among young women:

[CalStateTempe]

So happy my oldest is giving up soccer this fall and going all in on ballet.

I’ve helped out in a few shows back stage, those teenagers and the profession dancers that participate in the shows are freaking athletes. I just needed to see them with core strength and all the stuff they do in stage then coming back stages huffing as if they just ran 40m sprints. It’s amazingly impressive.

[CalStateTempe]

Our gymnastics studio has a particular funk smell to it.

Also vastly prefer dance moms to gym moms. Once keeps up with things, the other is letting nature take its course and helping out along the way (smoking, eating garbage food, etc)

[EastCoastCat]

My daughter is a trained and accomplished dancer (ballet, tap, jazz, modern, hip hop) plus she does track and field (sprints & hurdles) and cross-country.

If your kid is focused enough they can do sports and other activities. They just have to have the desire and commitment to do it.

[Longhorned]

So happy my oldest is giving up soccer this fall and going all in on ballet.

I’ve helped out in a few shows back stage, those teenagers and the profession dancers that participate in the shows are freaking athletes. I just needed to see them with core strength and all the stuff they do in stage then coming back stages huffing as if they just ran 40m sprints. It’s amazingly impressive.

I get what you're saying, but since this is the unpopular opinions thread, I hate how everyone appeals to my sense of appreciation of athletics to persuade me to enjoy ballet, and yet would never deign to attend or watch an NBA game. Actually, I don't hate that. What I hate is their sense of being justified that I should watch ballet but they shouldn't watch basketball.

I used to have season tickets to the Krannert. I think ballet is amazing. Duh. But when I've tried to engage friends and family in a big game that's on, they won't even look at it. I thought they were supposed to appreciate the ballet of basketball. Apparently that's just rhetoric for the uncouth.