Their population is declining because of their terrible work and life culture and the deeply engrained sexism in their society, not because they aren't allowing immigration. A large portion of...
Their population is declining because of their terrible work and life culture and the deeply engrained sexism in their society, not because they aren't allowing immigration.
A large portion of their young people are social outcasts, shut ins, and/or will never be able to afford to have a family. (Something that is mirrored by a lot of other countries right now, though maybe not to the same extremes.) Immigration will not fix these problems, it's simply kicking the can down the road.
Low birth rates are often cited as indicators of societal failure. I'm not sure about that. I think it's the opposite. We can see around the world that countries with great standards of living...
Low birth rates are often cited as indicators of societal failure. I'm not sure about that. I think it's the opposite.
We can see around the world that countries with great standards of living have low birth rates; countries with poor standards of living have high birth rates. If the reason why people don't have children were because life sucked, then we would see the reverse. Yet horrible-to-live-in countries like Congo, Niger, Afghanistan, and Iraq lead the world in high birth rates; while the objectively nicest-to-live-in countries like Finland, Sweden, Italy, and Singapore are quickly aging and shrinking.
I think that low birth rates indicate that countries offer their citizens life paths that are better than parenthood: careers, shopping, hobbies, travel, socializing, etc.
I think there are additional explanations/ rationalizations for the differences in birth rates: Economies that utilize child labor (either legally or illegally) tend to incentivize parents to have...
I think there are additional explanations/ rationalizations for the differences in birth rates:
Economies that utilize child labor (either legally or illegally) tend to incentivize parents to have more kids.
High birth rate countries may have higher infant / child mortality rates and could compensate by having more kids.
Developing countries have lower availability of contraception / family planning services.
Cost of living is lower in developing countries.
(Reverse the concepts to explain lower birth rates in developed countries).
I mostly agree, but I have a quibble with the last point, #4. Considering purchasing power, cost of living is actually much lower in developed countries. But something that is insufficiently...
I mostly agree, but I have a quibble with the last point, #4.
Cost of living is lower in developing countries.
Considering purchasing power, cost of living is actually much lower in developed countries. But something that is insufficiently mentioned is that the standard of living, expectations of thriving, and cost of thriving are significantly higher in developed countries.
As much Americans and people in other developed countries complain about inflation at the grocery stores, if we look at data at food spending as percentage of income, people living in developed countries spend 6~14% of their household income on food.
Compare this to how the average Nigerian spends 57%; Cameroonian, 46%; and Egyptian, 36%. People in poorer countries spend their most of their incomes on necessities, and even that may not be enough.
I can identify with this, and it's a huge part of why my wife and I decided not to have kids of our own. Combined with the lack of feelings of obligation (to our families or society) to have...
I think that low birth rates indicate that countries offer their citizens life paths that are better than parenthood: careers, shopping, hobbies, travel, socializing, etc.
I can identify with this, and it's a huge part of why my wife and I decided not to have kids of our own. Combined with the lack of feelings of obligation (to our families or society) to have children, the alternative lifestyle that comes with being childfree appealed to us way more. We have strong careers, hobbies, travel and are on track for retirement somewhere between ages 50 and 60. We'd never be able to accomplish that with the time and expense that accompany children.
It feels somewhat broken that this is an either/or decision… while becoming parents is going to unavoidably stretch time more thin no matter what, it shouldn’t be economically difficult to have...
It feels somewhat broken that this is an either/or decision… while becoming parents is going to unavoidably stretch time more thin no matter what, it shouldn’t be economically difficult to have hobbies, relatively early retirement, and a family.
While I think I’ll probably start a family at some point, I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. Why put yourself in a position where your family is just barely getting by when you and your partner are thriving?
I wouldn't really call it a binary either/or decision. It's more about finding the right balance. You could still have children and hobbies, but you would likely have fewer hobbies and extend your...
I wouldn't really call it a binary either/or decision. It's more about finding the right balance. You could still have children and hobbies, but you would likely have fewer hobbies and extend your retirement timeline because of the amount of resources (time, money and energy) that children require.
I would never discourage someone who wants to have a family from having one. It's one possible life path. Most parents say that it's the most rewarding part of their lives. But at the end of the day, we are all bound by a limitation of either time, money or energy and have to make choices on how we spend those resources. It will always be like this. The only thing that will change is the base/average standard of living, which has indeed gotten (generally) better over time.
In my own case, it just happens that my wife and I are more than fulfilled in our lives without having children, and have decided that the "benefits" or "rewards" of having children are not worth the sacrifices that we'd have to make in other areas of our lives in order to have them. So we've "balanced" our scales away from raising a family and more towards other life experiences.
Everyone I know who has had kids suddenly has basically no time for hobbies or socializing. For the people I have in mind right now, it's not an economic problem at all. Kids are just insanely...
Everyone I know who has had kids suddenly has basically no time for hobbies or socializing. For the people I have in mind right now, it's not an economic problem at all. Kids are just insanely time consuming.
Kids are indeed insanely time consuming, but that can be mitigated somewhat if finances are in good enough shape by way of day care, sitters, hiring someone to help with cleaning and chores a...
Kids are indeed insanely time consuming, but that can be mitigated somewhat if finances are in good enough shape by way of day care, sitters, hiring someone to help with cleaning and chores a couple days each week, etc. Most families don’t have that luxury though, which is in the vein of what I was getting at with my previous post.
My friends can afford sitters, the problem is they can never find a reliable one. They've had to cancel so many activities on us because they couldn't find a sitter, or the one they did find...
My friends can afford sitters, the problem is they can never find a reliable one. They've had to cancel so many activities on us because they couldn't find a sitter, or the one they did find bailed last minute.
It's really soured me on the idea of having children myself.
Every live being on this planet is hardwired to want to reproduce. I think a good society strives to improve the place it exists in and provides a stable environment for its members to thrive in...
Every live being on this planet is hardwired to want to reproduce. I think a good society strives to improve the place it exists in and provides a stable environment for its members to thrive in peace and freedom. I don't think you have to do much more than provide the appropriate framework and people will want to found families pretty much by themselves.
Low birth rates are often cited as indicators of societal failure. I'm not sure about that. I think it's the opposite.
I disagree, because every society you noted as objectively nice to live are facing pretty big challenges as their social systems were created with a growing population in mind which is now causing problems. It is very hard for a shrinking society to remain stable, because not every job can be automated. In my country of Austria, which I would add to one of those objectively nicest-to-live-in countries list, we're facing the issue of a dwindling labour force in, for example, the medical field. A lot of doctors are on the cusp of retirement, and there aren't enough young ones to fill their shoes. Since a lot of your practical medical education comes from working alongside older, more experienced colleagues while expected to cover more shifts than the older people in the workforce, this is already a pretty big problem. And this isn't a issue where "just pay them more" (even though it's one solution) is an easy fix, because of the long lead-time on this shit. It takes at the very least 6 YEARS before a doctor can enter the workforce, and at that point they're fresh out of uni and their education is still years away from being actually complete.
A stable society means that the people entering and exiting the workforce are equal to each other, because this allows people and companies to plan ahead for the long-term.
I know this bit is largely unrelated to the rest of your comment (most of which I agree with you on fwiw) but let's not be hyperbolic on this one. There's no shortage of humans who are exclusively...
Every live being on this planet is hardwired to want to reproduce.
I know this bit is largely unrelated to the rest of your comment (most of which I agree with you on fwiw) but let's not be hyperbolic on this one. There's no shortage of humans who are exclusively gay or totally asexual, to say nothing of the rest of the animal kingdom.
There is not and they deserve to live freely and happy too just like everyone else and should not be second-guessed for their choices, but they are absolutely in the minority here. They are the...
There is not and they deserve to live freely and happy too just like everyone else and should not be second-guessed for their choices, but they are absolutely in the minority here. They are the exception that makes the rule.
Plenty of gay people want to raise children too. One theory proposed by evolutionary sociologists is that homosexuality evolved because it creates couples which can foster and adopt children. This...
Plenty of gay people want to raise children too. One theory proposed by evolutionary sociologists is that homosexuality evolved because it creates couples which can foster and adopt children. This behaviour is observed in some species of primates, so there's evidence behind the theory.
That theory exists and I actually quite like it, but reproduce =/= raise children. It's even less true that every living being wants to raise children, given how common it is to abandon offspring...
That theory exists and I actually quite like it, but reproduce =/= raise children. It's even less true that every living being wants to raise children, given how common it is to abandon offspring at birth in the animal kingdom.
I agree partially, but unfortunately the way society is set up, having low birth rates is a death sentence for economies. Once people get too old to work, they can no longer contribute to the...
I agree partially, but unfortunately the way society is set up, having low birth rates is a death sentence for economies. Once people get too old to work, they can no longer contribute to the system and often require vast amount of resources to take care of them, if you don't have enough people younger who are still working suddenly there aren't any resources to take care of the aging population. Its basically a ponzi scheme which has spiraled way out of control since the world population exploded in the past 100 years
Japan has had a growing economy for decades while their birth rate has been declining since (if I remember the date correctly) the 70's. You should be wary of people who are claiming that Japan's...
Japan has had a growing economy for decades while their birth rate has been declining since (if I remember the date correctly) the 70's. You should be wary of people who are claiming that Japan's economy is dying or dead. It's been being said for a long, long time. They may have an agenda that is causing them to interpret things in that way, because it is not reflected in the evidence as a whole.
Yeah. There's only a few ways this could go, really. If we can get automated robot assistants, everything will be great and every old person will have their own little assistant. But more likely,...
Yeah. There's only a few ways this could go, really. If we can get automated robot assistants, everything will be great and every old person will have their own little assistant.
But more likely, quality of life will tank massively for everyone who can't afford a very expensive younger set of hands.
But then, as younger people see that the existing systems aren't set up to care about them in their old age, they'll start to have more kids as a hedge against the increased cost of care in their old age, and we'll bounce back.
I disagree. Having children as a retirement strategy only works under some economic conditions. For the middle and upper classes of first world societies, it makes more financial sense to not have...
I disagree. Having children as a retirement strategy only works under some economic conditions. For the middle and upper classes of first world societies, it makes more financial sense to not have a child and put the savings into appreciating assets to fund your retirement. Your child will be less capable of supporting both you and themselves (not to mention any children of their own they may have) while they are still early in their career and do not have many assets.
In a different sort of economy (e.g., a hunter-gatherer economy or a subsistence farming economy), it is not realistic to save for retirement; you are dealing in depreciating goods, rather than appreciating assets, and so you need some means of continuing to acquire new goods in your old age. In this situation, children effectively are the appreciating asset you can invest in, because they will enter the prime of their productivity while you are exiting the prime of yours.
I don't see first world countries returning to third world birthrates without a major overhaul of their economies to increase the value of labor and decrease the value of assets. I think this is unlikely; it seems we are only quickening our pace in the exact opposite direction.
But most Americans couldn't cover a $500 surprise expense. They aren't dealing in appreciating assets even now. Unless something changes I fear that a tipping point back towards common subsistence...
But most Americans couldn't cover a $500 surprise expense. They aren't dealing in appreciating assets even now. Unless something changes I fear that a tipping point back towards common subsistence farming or something like it is less far away than we think.
Americans who can't cover surprise expenses are likely lower income, and lower income families have a higher birthrate than higher income families. They are likely more dependent on their adult...
Americans who can't cover surprise expenses are likely lower income, and lower income families have a higher birthrate than higher income families. They are likely more dependent on their adult children to survive in their later years; at the same time, though, having young children likely pushes them into lower income brackets (which is not the case for subsistence farmers, where children start generating wealth for the family starting at a surprisingly young age).
2.4 is a vastly different low birthrate compared to 0.9 or 1.2. Declining from 6.3 to 2.4 is a healthy progressing society; something is deeply wrong at the 0.9 level. “Low birth rate” has been...
2.4 is a vastly different low birthrate compared to 0.9 or 1.2. Declining from 6.3 to 2.4 is a healthy progressing society; something is deeply wrong at the 0.9 level.
I'm not sure about that. If you look at countries that are at or around replacement rate, you'll see countries like Egypt (2.8), Syria (2.7), Haiti (2.7), Libya (2.4), Saudi Arabia (2.4), South...
I'm not sure about that. If you look at countries that are at or around replacement rate, you'll see countries like Egypt (2.8), Syria (2.7), Haiti (2.7), Libya (2.4), Saudi Arabia (2.4), South Africa (2.3), Venezuela (2.2), Lebanon (2.1), Myanmar (2.1), and the like. None of these countries are remotely healthy progressing societies.
Interestingly, the data points that the recipe for a replacement birth rate is to offer a miserable (but not horribly awful) standard of living combined with a modest (but not high) level of education, limited (but not zero) economic opportunity, and limited human and women's rights (but not completely nonexistent like in Congo or Somalia).
Talking about a country without having spent a large amount of time there is always risky (and reliably results in some rather skewed discussions online), but as someone who lived there for a few...
Talking about a country without having spent a large amount of time there is always risky (and reliably results in some rather skewed discussions online), but as someone who lived there for a few years in the past and periodically visit here’s my take.
I don’t know that Japan actually has that much more of a problem with outcasts and shut-ins than for example the US does. These individuals are just much more visible in the context of Japanese society, which is more homogenous and has higher expectations of societal conformance than nearly all the countries it gets compared to. There, any deviance from the typical is going to make an individual stand out a lot more.
By contrast, the US has such mixed demographics all with wildly varying customs, backgrounds, and community expectations that those having trouble integrating into society are far less visible and might not even be considered a problem. Getting an accurate number to go by is difficult and is likely to include only the most extreme cases.
I by no means a social structure expert, but from what I've seen/heard its mostly due to their work culture being so entirely demanding that anyone who doesn't fit into that niche is seen as...
I by no means a social structure expert, but from what I've seen/heard its mostly due to their work culture being so entirely demanding that anyone who doesn't fit into that niche is seen as worthless. I'm sure its more complicated than that, but young men especially have a very hard time finding meaning in life outside of working themselves to death.
Sure, that's why I put this line in: Though I'm not trying to portray myself as an expert, this is just information I've picked up from a lot of passive reading
Sure, that's why I put this line in:
(Something that is mirrored by a lot of other countries right now, though maybe not to the same extremes.)
Though I'm not trying to portray myself as an expert, this is just information I've picked up from a lot of passive reading
I don't how I feel about implying Japan is a backwards society for its immigration policy. There is nothing inherently morally virtuous about being open to immigrants. Japan is and has always been...
I don't how I feel about implying Japan is a backwards society for its immigration policy. There is nothing inherently morally virtuous about being open to immigrants. Japan is and has always been a very insular culture that take its own and even other identities very seriously. Immigration naturally poses a set of challenges that they're hesitant about undertaking. The world can give Japan counsel to accept more immigrants, but their decision should ultimately be respected.
As someone with an interest in Japan's culture and history, I do not believe such degree of reverence is justified. I'm sure other people will bring more substantial references in that regard, but...
As someone with an interest in Japan's culture and history, I do not believe such degree of reverence is justified. I'm sure other people will bring more substantial references in that regard, but Japan is not Wakanda.
It's ultimately a zero sum game in that the countries Japan would take immigrants from will eventually have the same decline in birth rates that the entire developed world is experiencing, and...
It's ultimately a zero sum game in that the countries Japan would take immigrants from will eventually have the same decline in birth rates that the entire developed world is experiencing, and that the world will be left with roughly the same number of people. I think Japan's immigration policy over the decades and lack of initiative in supporting families is unwise, but I don't think being harshly critical is justified.
Sure but not all distributions of humans are equal. If you have a country with too many human resources but not enough industry for all of them to actually have useful things to do, that’s bad....
Sure but not all distributions of humans are equal. If you have a country with too many human resources but not enough industry for all of them to actually have useful things to do, that’s bad. Similarly, if you have a country with plenty of industry but not enough human labor to optimally saturate that, it’s also bad. Immigration is a way for this resource imbalance to equalize, to the benefit of all.
It’s really no different than other mutually beneficial resource exchanges.
Well, that depends on the type of immigration that’s occurring. And it can also bring back innovation to the origin country, as some immigrants move back, now trained in a country with more...
Well, that depends on the type of immigration that’s occurring. And it can also bring back innovation to the origin country, as some immigrants move back, now trained in a country with more advance development in their field.
This would be more feasible in a sudden sharp population change. Instead, this is a gradual one with an inverted population pyramid. It means the same pattern will remain true in 50 or 100 years...
This would be more feasible in a sudden sharp population change. Instead, this is a gradual one with an inverted population pyramid. It means the same pattern will remain true in 50 or 100 years as each generation has fewer children. There will always be more elderly to care for than current living young population.
You never know why people might start having more kids. In the current situation it seems unlikely, but there may well be moralistic arguments or legal actions that cause an upward change in...
You never know why people might start having more kids. In the current situation it seems unlikely, but there may well be moralistic arguments or legal actions that cause an upward change in birthrates. Governments who foresee their eventual death in the absence of citizenry may take various steps to try to reverse the trend. Some of those attempts may actually work.
I suspect that at some point (after a shrinkage in population), the TFR will stabilize around replacement (2.1 or so) as the adults/elderly without children pass away, and an equilibrium is...
I suspect that at some point (after a shrinkage in population), the TFR will stabilize around replacement (2.1 or so) as the adults/elderly without children pass away, and an equilibrium is reached where a majority of people have one or two kids, and smaller numbers have none or three plus. None of the countries with the super low TFR (Japan, for example) has reached that point yet, so we don’t know how long that process will take.
I have a strong suspicion that the effects of climate change will come faster and stronger than whatever “bounce back” would have naturally occurred to maintain a replacement fertility rate. Once...
I have a strong suspicion that the effects of climate change will come faster and stronger than whatever “bounce back” would have naturally occurred to maintain a replacement fertility rate. Once resources become more scarce it would be economically infeasible to have a large family unless the government heavily subsidized this for its own survival (which would likely come at the cost of supporting an elderly and non-productive population…a tough sell).
Or child labor will become more palatable again, to make children a more immediate net gain for the parents. As it is, in a developed economy, a parent is expected to lay out a million dollars or...
Or child labor will become more palatable again, to make children a more immediate net gain for the parents. As it is, in a developed economy, a parent is expected to lay out a million dollars or more over 20 years to raise a kid, getting little but some household chores in return, and then hope that they might get taken care of one day, if the kid feels like it? Laid out so coldly, it seems like a really terrible deal for anyone who's already worried about making do.
In subsistence farming or other small household crafting situations, another set of hands can be helpful from a very early age. My mom was raised on a farm outside of a rural village, and she was doing chores to help run the farm from the age of 3. That sort of thing won't fly in cities not only because there's child labor laws, but because most of the work isn't the sort kids could do. To truly change the economics of having children, we need to either make it possible to extract economic benefit from them earlier (not my preferred option, to be clear,) or subsidize parenthood significantly more than we currently do.
I’m a bit more of a delayed optimist on climate stuff, but I certainly don’t think large families would be common. Three and especially four-plus kid families would be uncommon/rare, outside of...
I’m a bit more of a delayed optimist on climate stuff, but I certainly don’t think large families would be common. Three and especially four-plus kid families would be uncommon/rare, outside of certain religious groups (Most of whom would utilize the labor in cultivating agricultural land anyway).
Maybe it’s just the teacher in me, but reading this made me profoundly sad. This paragraph alone is haunting: The last few dozen children. It is a silence of the loudest type that comes from eight...
Maybe it’s just the teacher in me, but reading this made me profoundly sad. This paragraph alone is haunting:
The school, which was more than a century old, was forced to close in 2009 when the last few dozen children left to join a bigger one “because they couldn’t make any friends”, mayor Yoshinari Tomita said.
The last few dozen children.
It is a silence of the loudest type that comes from eight thousand schools closing.
This is the image of a country obsessed with racial purity. Only 2.29% of Japan's residents are immigrants.
Their population is declining because of their terrible work and life culture and the deeply engrained sexism in their society, not because they aren't allowing immigration.
A large portion of their young people are social outcasts, shut ins, and/or will never be able to afford to have a family. (Something that is mirrored by a lot of other countries right now, though maybe not to the same extremes.) Immigration will not fix these problems, it's simply kicking the can down the road.
Low birth rates are often cited as indicators of societal failure. I'm not sure about that. I think it's the opposite.
We can see around the world that countries with great standards of living have low birth rates; countries with poor standards of living have high birth rates. If the reason why people don't have children were because life sucked, then we would see the reverse. Yet horrible-to-live-in countries like Congo, Niger, Afghanistan, and Iraq lead the world in high birth rates; while the objectively nicest-to-live-in countries like Finland, Sweden, Italy, and Singapore are quickly aging and shrinking.
I think that low birth rates indicate that countries offer their citizens life paths that are better than parenthood: careers, shopping, hobbies, travel, socializing, etc.
I think there are additional explanations/ rationalizations for the differences in birth rates:
(Reverse the concepts to explain lower birth rates in developed countries).
I mostly agree, but I have a quibble with the last point, #4.
Considering purchasing power, cost of living is actually much lower in developed countries. But something that is insufficiently mentioned is that the standard of living, expectations of thriving, and cost of thriving are significantly higher in developed countries.
As much Americans and people in other developed countries complain about inflation at the grocery stores, if we look at data at food spending as percentage of income, people living in developed countries spend 6~14% of their household income on food.
Compare this to how the average Nigerian spends 57%; Cameroonian, 46%; and Egyptian, 36%. People in poorer countries spend their most of their incomes on necessities, and even that may not be enough.
I can identify with this, and it's a huge part of why my wife and I decided not to have kids of our own. Combined with the lack of feelings of obligation (to our families or society) to have children, the alternative lifestyle that comes with being childfree appealed to us way more. We have strong careers, hobbies, travel and are on track for retirement somewhere between ages 50 and 60. We'd never be able to accomplish that with the time and expense that accompany children.
It feels somewhat broken that this is an either/or decision… while becoming parents is going to unavoidably stretch time more thin no matter what, it shouldn’t be economically difficult to have hobbies, relatively early retirement, and a family.
While I think I’ll probably start a family at some point, I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. Why put yourself in a position where your family is just barely getting by when you and your partner are thriving?
I wouldn't really call it a binary either/or decision. It's more about finding the right balance. You could still have children and hobbies, but you would likely have fewer hobbies and extend your retirement timeline because of the amount of resources (time, money and energy) that children require.
I would never discourage someone who wants to have a family from having one. It's one possible life path. Most parents say that it's the most rewarding part of their lives. But at the end of the day, we are all bound by a limitation of either time, money or energy and have to make choices on how we spend those resources. It will always be like this. The only thing that will change is the base/average standard of living, which has indeed gotten (generally) better over time.
In my own case, it just happens that my wife and I are more than fulfilled in our lives without having children, and have decided that the "benefits" or "rewards" of having children are not worth the sacrifices that we'd have to make in other areas of our lives in order to have them. So we've "balanced" our scales away from raising a family and more towards other life experiences.
Everyone I know who has had kids suddenly has basically no time for hobbies or socializing. For the people I have in mind right now, it's not an economic problem at all. Kids are just insanely time consuming.
Kids are indeed insanely time consuming, but that can be mitigated somewhat if finances are in good enough shape by way of day care, sitters, hiring someone to help with cleaning and chores a couple days each week, etc. Most families don’t have that luxury though, which is in the vein of what I was getting at with my previous post.
My friends can afford sitters, the problem is they can never find a reliable one. They've had to cancel so many activities on us because they couldn't find a sitter, or the one they did find bailed last minute.
It's really soured me on the idea of having children myself.
Every live being on this planet is hardwired to want to reproduce. I think a good society strives to improve the place it exists in and provides a stable environment for its members to thrive in peace and freedom. I don't think you have to do much more than provide the appropriate framework and people will want to found families pretty much by themselves.
I disagree, because every society you noted as objectively nice to live are facing pretty big challenges as their social systems were created with a growing population in mind which is now causing problems. It is very hard for a shrinking society to remain stable, because not every job can be automated. In my country of Austria, which I would add to one of those objectively nicest-to-live-in countries list, we're facing the issue of a dwindling labour force in, for example, the medical field. A lot of doctors are on the cusp of retirement, and there aren't enough young ones to fill their shoes. Since a lot of your practical medical education comes from working alongside older, more experienced colleagues while expected to cover more shifts than the older people in the workforce, this is already a pretty big problem. And this isn't a issue where "just pay them more" (even though it's one solution) is an easy fix, because of the long lead-time on this shit. It takes at the very least 6 YEARS before a doctor can enter the workforce, and at that point they're fresh out of uni and their education is still years away from being actually complete.
A stable society means that the people entering and exiting the workforce are equal to each other, because this allows people and companies to plan ahead for the long-term.
I know this bit is largely unrelated to the rest of your comment (most of which I agree with you on fwiw) but let's not be hyperbolic on this one. There's no shortage of humans who are exclusively gay or totally asexual, to say nothing of the rest of the animal kingdom.
There is not and they deserve to live freely and happy too just like everyone else and should not be second-guessed for their choices, but they are absolutely in the minority here. They are the exception that makes the rule.
Oh I don't dispute the minority status, just the pointlessness of inaccurate hyperbole like "every living being" and such.
Plenty of gay people want to raise children too. One theory proposed by evolutionary sociologists is that homosexuality evolved because it creates couples which can foster and adopt children. This behaviour is observed in some species of primates, so there's evidence behind the theory.
That theory exists and I actually quite like it, but reproduce =/= raise children. It's even less true that every living being wants to raise children, given how common it is to abandon offspring at birth in the animal kingdom.
I agree partially, but unfortunately the way society is set up, having low birth rates is a death sentence for economies. Once people get too old to work, they can no longer contribute to the system and often require vast amount of resources to take care of them, if you don't have enough people younger who are still working suddenly there aren't any resources to take care of the aging population. Its basically a ponzi scheme which has spiraled way out of control since the world population exploded in the past 100 years
Japan has had a growing economy for decades while their birth rate has been declining since (if I remember the date correctly) the 70's. You should be wary of people who are claiming that Japan's economy is dying or dead. It's been being said for a long, long time. They may have an agenda that is causing them to interpret things in that way, because it is not reflected in the evidence as a whole.
Yeah. There's only a few ways this could go, really. If we can get automated robot assistants, everything will be great and every old person will have their own little assistant.
But more likely, quality of life will tank massively for everyone who can't afford a very expensive younger set of hands.
But then, as younger people see that the existing systems aren't set up to care about them in their old age, they'll start to have more kids as a hedge against the increased cost of care in their old age, and we'll bounce back.
Wait, no, we'll have died.
Some future society will bounce back.
I disagree. Having children as a retirement strategy only works under some economic conditions. For the middle and upper classes of first world societies, it makes more financial sense to not have a child and put the savings into appreciating assets to fund your retirement. Your child will be less capable of supporting both you and themselves (not to mention any children of their own they may have) while they are still early in their career and do not have many assets.
In a different sort of economy (e.g., a hunter-gatherer economy or a subsistence farming economy), it is not realistic to save for retirement; you are dealing in depreciating goods, rather than appreciating assets, and so you need some means of continuing to acquire new goods in your old age. In this situation, children effectively are the appreciating asset you can invest in, because they will enter the prime of their productivity while you are exiting the prime of yours.
I don't see first world countries returning to third world birthrates without a major overhaul of their economies to increase the value of labor and decrease the value of assets. I think this is unlikely; it seems we are only quickening our pace in the exact opposite direction.
But most Americans couldn't cover a $500 surprise expense. They aren't dealing in appreciating assets even now. Unless something changes I fear that a tipping point back towards common subsistence farming or something like it is less far away than we think.
Americans who can't cover surprise expenses are likely lower income, and lower income families have a higher birthrate than higher income families. They are likely more dependent on their adult children to survive in their later years; at the same time, though, having young children likely pushes them into lower income brackets (which is not the case for subsistence farmers, where children start generating wealth for the family starting at a surprisingly young age).
Yeah, corporate consolidation of farmland ownership has a lot of impact on the possibility of farming as a lifestyle.
2.4 is a vastly different low birthrate compared to 0.9 or 1.2. Declining from 6.3 to 2.4 is a healthy progressing society; something is deeply wrong at the 0.9 level.
“Low birth rate” has been used to describe both.
I'm not sure about that. If you look at countries that are at or around replacement rate, you'll see countries like Egypt (2.8), Syria (2.7), Haiti (2.7), Libya (2.4), Saudi Arabia (2.4), South Africa (2.3), Venezuela (2.2), Lebanon (2.1), Myanmar (2.1), and the like. None of these countries are remotely healthy progressing societies.
Interestingly, the data points that the recipe for a replacement birth rate is to offer a miserable (but not horribly awful) standard of living combined with a modest (but not high) level of education, limited (but not zero) economic opportunity, and limited human and women's rights (but not completely nonexistent like in Congo or Somalia).
Why does Japan have such a big issue with social outcasts and shut-ins?
Talking about a country without having spent a large amount of time there is always risky (and reliably results in some rather skewed discussions online), but as someone who lived there for a few years in the past and periodically visit here’s my take.
I don’t know that Japan actually has that much more of a problem with outcasts and shut-ins than for example the US does. These individuals are just much more visible in the context of Japanese society, which is more homogenous and has higher expectations of societal conformance than nearly all the countries it gets compared to. There, any deviance from the typical is going to make an individual stand out a lot more.
By contrast, the US has such mixed demographics all with wildly varying customs, backgrounds, and community expectations that those having trouble integrating into society are far less visible and might not even be considered a problem. Getting an accurate number to go by is difficult and is likely to include only the most extreme cases.
I by no means a social structure expert, but from what I've seen/heard its mostly due to their work culture being so entirely demanding that anyone who doesn't fit into that niche is seen as worthless. I'm sure its more complicated than that, but young men especially have a very hard time finding meaning in life outside of working themselves to death.
Couldnt that be said similarly for Korea and some other countries?
Sure, that's why I put this line in:
Though I'm not trying to portray myself as an expert, this is just information I've picked up from a lot of passive reading
Same. Seen articles how population in Korea have been declining for a while as well
I don't how I feel about implying Japan is a backwards society for its immigration policy. There is nothing inherently morally virtuous about being open to immigrants. Japan is and has always been a very insular culture that take its own and even other identities very seriously. Immigration naturally poses a set of challenges that they're hesitant about undertaking. The world can give Japan counsel to accept more immigrants, but their decision should ultimately be respected.
As someone with an interest in Japan's culture and history, I do not believe such degree of reverence is justified. I'm sure other people will bring more substantial references in that regard, but Japan is not Wakanda.
It's ultimately a zero sum game in that the countries Japan would take immigrants from will eventually have the same decline in birth rates that the entire developed world is experiencing, and that the world will be left with roughly the same number of people. I think Japan's immigration policy over the decades and lack of initiative in supporting families is unwise, but I don't think being harshly critical is justified.
Sure but not all distributions of humans are equal. If you have a country with too many human resources but not enough industry for all of them to actually have useful things to do, that’s bad. Similarly, if you have a country with plenty of industry but not enough human labor to optimally saturate that, it’s also bad. Immigration is a way for this resource imbalance to equalize, to the benefit of all.
It’s really no different than other mutually beneficial resource exchanges.
On the other hand, it's also a driver of brain drain that undermines the prosperity of the countries the immigrants are coming from.
Well, that depends on the type of immigration that’s occurring. And it can also bring back innovation to the origin country, as some immigrants move back, now trained in a country with more advance development in their field.
This would be more feasible in a sudden sharp population change. Instead, this is a gradual one with an inverted population pyramid. It means the same pattern will remain true in 50 or 100 years as each generation has fewer children. There will always be more elderly to care for than current living young population.
You never know why people might start having more kids. In the current situation it seems unlikely, but there may well be moralistic arguments or legal actions that cause an upward change in birthrates. Governments who foresee their eventual death in the absence of citizenry may take various steps to try to reverse the trend. Some of those attempts may actually work.
I suspect that at some point (after a shrinkage in population), the TFR will stabilize around replacement (2.1 or so) as the adults/elderly without children pass away, and an equilibrium is reached where a majority of people have one or two kids, and smaller numbers have none or three plus. None of the countries with the super low TFR (Japan, for example) has reached that point yet, so we don’t know how long that process will take.
I have a strong suspicion that the effects of climate change will come faster and stronger than whatever “bounce back” would have naturally occurred to maintain a replacement fertility rate. Once resources become more scarce it would be economically infeasible to have a large family unless the government heavily subsidized this for its own survival (which would likely come at the cost of supporting an elderly and non-productive population…a tough sell).
Or child labor will become more palatable again, to make children a more immediate net gain for the parents. As it is, in a developed economy, a parent is expected to lay out a million dollars or more over 20 years to raise a kid, getting little but some household chores in return, and then hope that they might get taken care of one day, if the kid feels like it? Laid out so coldly, it seems like a really terrible deal for anyone who's already worried about making do.
In subsistence farming or other small household crafting situations, another set of hands can be helpful from a very early age. My mom was raised on a farm outside of a rural village, and she was doing chores to help run the farm from the age of 3. That sort of thing won't fly in cities not only because there's child labor laws, but because most of the work isn't the sort kids could do. To truly change the economics of having children, we need to either make it possible to extract economic benefit from them earlier (not my preferred option, to be clear,) or subsidize parenthood significantly more than we currently do.
I’m a bit more of a delayed optimist on climate stuff, but I certainly don’t think large families would be common. Three and especially four-plus kid families would be uncommon/rare, outside of certain religious groups (Most of whom would utilize the labor in cultivating agricultural land anyway).
Maybe it’s just the teacher in me, but reading this made me profoundly sad. This paragraph alone is haunting:
The last few dozen children.
It is a silence of the loudest type that comes from eight thousand schools closing.