I think immigration is the best solution. There's no shortage of babies and young people in the world. The article notes that liberal immigration policies are not popular. Well, maybe that's the problem. I suspect that immigration will gain popularity when the problems caused by the ageing population become sufficiently severe. The problem will solve itself at the right time.
Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
11–20 of 83 posts
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#12This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.
Mistercrow asked the question above -I'll ask it here: Why do you think it won't repeat? To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
But is there a (modern) society that had a birthrate drop like this and perished as a result?
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#14It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#15This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.
No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or reason that it would just yet.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#16I think immigration is the best solution. There's no shortage of babies and young people in the world. The article notes that liberal immigration policies are not popular. Well, maybe that's the problem. I suspect that immigration will gain popularity when the problems caused by the ageing population become sufficiently severe. The problem will solve itself at the right time.
Japan has always been very insular and has very strong anti-immigration policies.
Also, their politics is probably more screwed up and dysfunctional than this article suggests, so any change seems unlikely.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#17These demographic trends are, unfortunately, only temporary.
From the point of view of evolution, birth control is a disaster. I have done exactly the activity evolution has programmed me to do to continue the species, regularly, for over 20 years. Only twice did it result in children, and both times were conscious choices on my part.
However evolution knows how to face these disasters. There is a small minority of people who have the option of birth control, who have all of the same economic incentives that I do, yet choose to have lots of children. Their children are less likely to want to use birth control than mine. Thanks to exponential growth, that minority that chooses to have children regardless will become a majority. And after that point, voluntary birth control and economic incentives will not suffice to keep the population from growing.
This is literally evolution in action.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#18This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.
No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child…
Why? Out of the author's solutions that have been discussed in Japan for decades, only one involves children (and that's related to daycare, not more babies), and the others involve changing a culture that needs to change to adapt to this. Then they would be an example to the world.
If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#19It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.
Except the global population isn't growing uncontrollably.
The USA has a birth rate just barely above replenishment (and dropping), Europe has dropped below replenishment rate, etc.
Some pretty graphs here: http://andrewducker.dreamwidth.org/2776214.html
Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?
#20It's almost incredible to have this kind of problem today when the global population is growing uncontrollably.
I think the real concern with this is not that we’ll have fewer people in Japan (a good thing) but that the system can’t support contraction.
If you have a workforce in their thirties who are still at entry level positions or thereabouts, and a majority of voters between the age of 50 and 80, you end up with a political class that wins elections with pro-retirement and healthcare policies and a tax-base that has no way to pay for it. This is a recipe for disaster and it’s already happening in Japan. It could easily happen in any aging population.