Without Babies, Can Japan Survive? • Hacker News Board

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#31

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:31 PM UTC

zeteo wrote: post #22

btilly wrote: post #17

These 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 p…

You said it, brother (sister?). In each country there are subcultures (religious fundamentalists, usually) that have birth rates well above replacement. Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but, with the kind of uninspiring, plasticky productions currently streaming out of Hollywood / big label music, that process is about to change. Let's just say, your radio is likely to pla…

It isn't just religious fundamentalists - it's also people with low conscientiousness. They have no moral aversion to birth control, they just don't think too hard about the consequences of unprotected sex (it feels nicer, and condoms are at the drugstore three blocks away).

And while Mormon's rapid breeding might prevent demographic malaise, the rapid breeding of low conscientiousness people won't - the very trait that causes them to breed rapidly also causes them to be generally unproductive.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#32

Post by w1ntermute » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:33 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #2

This is pretty awful analysis. It conflates aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) with per-capita ones (birth rates, cost per child). And it's headline is a clear lie designed to draw clicks. Demographic change is a real challenge, and all industrial societies are heading for that kind of cliff. Japan's is larger than most (but smaller than China's), and they are going to get there first. But this isn't the kind of disaste…

It also depends on culture. The article says that Japanese women don't find Japanese men as attractive partners because of low pay, long working hours for them, etc., but there's also the fact that young Japanese men just aren't that interested in having sex or pursuing women. This cultural phenomenon, known as Sōshoku danshi （草食男子）, or herbivorous men[0,1], has to end if things are going to turn around. These men are more interested in their hobbies and personal grooming. This image summarizes the problem well: http://i.imgur.com/SUVEp.jpg

In fact, it's often the opposite of what the article states - there's a trend among women called Nikushoku joshi （肉食女子）, or carnivorous women, where the women are actively pursuing men out of necessity.

0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10...

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#33

Post by RyanZAG » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:40 PM UTC

Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate:

"Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty has led couples to delay getting married and having children. The shortage of public day care centers, especially in cities, has made the cost and burden of parenthood so high that today’s couples either have fewer babies or none at all. (Japan’s birthrate is just 1.39 children per woman.)"

What happens when the population shrinks as a result of this? All of these problems magically right themselves.

Shortage of public day care centers? Solved with lower population.

Stagnant or declining incomes? Solved with a lower population, as each person can command a greater share of the economy (in aggregate) from simple supply/demand of labor.

This is just a pendulum swinging back into equilibrium that will eventually be felt across the globe - and while worse for Japan's Gross GDP, it will improve Japan's GDP per Capita, the only truly important 'country level' measure for actual citizens.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#34

Post by kklimonda » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

hudibras wrote: post #28

altcognito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that. Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer peopl…

It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in 1920.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#35

Post by meric » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:45 PM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #33

Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…

That works, but only as long as the proportion of non-productive population does not increase too fast.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#36

Post by halviti » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #33

Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…

You're only focusing on one side of the argument.

Less young people means a small amount of young people paying for lots of older people, which is a large financial burden on the people able to work. (as well as many other factors)

Also, GDP per capita is only used to measure money. There are many other factors that people might find important like happiness rankings, which to me happiness can be much more important than money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#37

Post by philwelch » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:47 PM UTC

RyanZAG wrote: post #33

Feels like the article misses the obvious while actually stating it. The reason for Japan's declining birth rate: "Although Japanese couples consistently say in surveys that they would like to have more than two children, they don’t. Part of the problem is Japan’s prolonged economic malaise. Years of stagnant (or declining) incomes have made Japanese men less attractive as potential partners. And economic uncertainty…

GDP per capita doesn't go up when population goes down, because there are fewer people working to produce goods and services. There's no economy genie producing wealth that has to be divided among the population.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#38

Post by altcognito » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:49 PM UTC

lucian303 wrote: post #18

altcognito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Prove it? I think the burden is on you my friend, for yours is the claim that is extraordinary. The human population is growing easily. Food and space is ample. Hell, we grow food to make energy for vehicles, not people. No, everybody can't live like Americans, but not everybody wants to live like Americans. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to live like Americans. (You may be amongst them!)

But for you to suggest that it is morally improper to have children because the world can't sustain it -- no, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to this non-sense. You go ahead and prove that the world isn't supporting the population without utilizing corrupt governments. It is insanity that some would have us roll back to the population and energy consumption 1800's because they have cannot come up with a modern solution.

Last, but not least, China reduced it's population. Would you call it a stellar example of environmental responsibility? Your problem is that you're conflating two completely different problems. Overpopulation (for today) is a non-existent problem. Fix destitution (a real problem) in the developing world, and birth rates will drop naturally.

tl;dr I make some assumptions about environmentalists. Fight poverty, not birth rates.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#39

Post by sridhar_vembu » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #31

zeteo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said it, brother (sister?). In each country there are subcultures (religious fundamentalists, usually) that have birth rates well above replacement. Secular culture has managed to peel away many of their kids in recent decades but, with the kind of uninspiring, plasticky productions currently streaming out of Hollywood / big label music, that process is about to change. Let's just say, your radio is likely to pla…

It isn't just religious fundamentalists - it's also people with low conscientiousness. They have no moral aversion to birth control, they just don't think too hard about the consequences of unprotected sex (it feels nicer, and condoms are at the drugstore three blocks away). And while Mormon's rapid breeding might prevent demographic malaise, the rapid breeding of low conscientiousness people won't - the very trait t…

I have to call bullshit on this one. Most of us here, supposedly "conscientious" people, can trace our being here (in the existential sense of "being") to some ancestor with "low consciousness".

Birthrates are falling rapidly around the world, yes, including in places you may think are populated with "low conscious" people. The reason is very prosaic: urbanization. As people get crammed into smaller areas, they naturally start to reproduce less.

It goes back to the fundamental human urge to take care of our offspring: an overcrowded city is also a highly competitive city (Tokyo, Hong Kong, New York etc illustrate this best) so people who live in that environment that don't want to bring more offspring into the world.

Even in a country like India, the population growth is almost all rural. The birth rate of city-natives in big cities has dropped well below replacement level, and cities are gaining population because of immigration and within one generation those rural-turned-city-dwellers have low birth rate.

Re: Without Babies, Can Japan Survive?

#40

Post by altcognito » Sun, Dec 16, 2012, 4:52 PM UTC

hudibras wrote: post #28

altcognito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that. Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer peopl…

As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I find your comments amusing. In fairness, comparing Detroit to Tokyo is like comparing night and day. This isn't to say there wouldn't be adjustment issues though.