World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I keep saying it all the time
It isn't about the QUANTITY of life
It's about the QUALITY of life
What sense does it make if you raise your population and everyone is miserably poor or on the edge of becoming poor?
It makes more sense if you just concentrate on making life more manageable, comfortable and sensible for the population you already have. Once you have a comfortable stable population of people who no longer worry about their future .... then they will be more likely to have a family.
On the one hand, yes having a child with a higher quality of life is better than having many children.
However, there's a good Kurzgesagt video about how the severe decline in birthrate can doom a population. Basically, if a population is not at the very least replacing itself, it will run out of young workers to keep the country going and vastly skew the proportion of elderly people to young workers. Small, rural towns will not survive since young people will flock to cities for work.
Though the video is based on Korea, the same concepts apply for Japan as well.
The logical, healthy approach to natural population growth and maintenance would be to provide social protections and supports for families and young people to grow into a society where they are encouraged and helped to start a family of one or two children in order to supply a healthy steady supply of new people for future generations.
Unfortunately, our world is governed by sociopathic wealthy overlords who demand more from people and want to give less to them. It's not all their fault because the majority of us all sit around and just passively accept it as just a normal part of society. What that will probably mean is that in the future it will be a strange form of population control where children are no longer born but they will be manufactured and bred in order to provide a steady supply of human resources to keep the profit driven capitalist machine running for wealthy overlords.
From the look of how we managed our society in the past century ... we won't solve this problem sensibly, or with any empathy for society as a whole but rather try to deal with it from an economic and financial point of view. The wealthy owning class don't see humanity as a whole that should be supported in any kind of healthy way ... they see humanity as a source of wealth and a group of thinking individuals that can be taken advantage of to extract wealth for owners rather than for the whole of society.
"fear of decline"
also, your argument is based on the totally-nonsense assumption that there "has to be a certain number of workers to sustain the elderly" which is bullshit (frankly). it's not about the number of workers; it's about the productive output, and as we all know, that has risen tremendously the last few years. So there should be no shortage of workers regardless of how many workers there are. Everything else is bullshit the news (which btw are owned by billionaires) tell you because they want to sack a significant part of productive output for themselves - well ofc if rich take 90% of output it's not gonna be enough for everyone. but that's the rich's fault and has nothing to do with "there not being enough workers".
You're not making an argument, there. You're showing a graph that's misleading because it starts at fucking 10000 BCE. Look at a graph of Japan if you want to talk about Japan, and of the current generations not prehistory.
Ah, yes, because having a machine that can churn out pottery like noone's business helps a lot with elderly and palliative care.
There is absolutely a limit how few kids a society can have before it collapses. Where that is is currently not particularly clear because the situation is unprecedented, but that there is a limit is crystal clear. 10 young people caring for 100 bed-ridden elderly and one kid, how long is that going to last, even if you automate everything else?
His graph is still valid, as the exponential growth doesn't really matter if we start from 0 BCE or 10000 BCE.
Here's
Even if we would loose 60% of the population now, we would still be 1.5 times the population of 1900 (9miljard x 0.4=3.6 >2)
That's still not a graph of Japan.
More importantly, you're not looking at the derivative, that is, the growth rate:
The growth has very much peaked, the last large countries are currently undergoing demographic transition (from having many kids, few survive, over having many kids, many survive (growth spike), to hawing few kids, of which pretty much all survive), e.g. Nigeria will be done by 2100. And societal collapse because people either can't do anything but care for the elderly, or social cohesion is failing because the elderly aren't cared for, does not depend on absolute numbers, it depends on the raw growth rate, because young people from 1900 aren't going to care for the elderly in 2100. And the growth rate it depends on is the local one how many Nigerians do you think fancy caring for Chinese elderly.
Oh and those projections above are with a moderate estimation of future fertility, that is, when the average country turns out like France. Not if the average country turns out like Japan or Korea.
Also, just to make this clear: There's nothing wrong with the population shrinking again. Or growing, the earth is far from its carrying capacity if we're doing it right. The trouble is shrinking too quickly, or for that matter growing too quickly. We should pine for two kids per woman, +-0.5, thereabouts: Don't veer too far off replacement levels. And all that can be done by proper social policy, parental leave, good schools, work/life/family balance, sex ed, etc.
Yeah, i agree. Decline should be at an acceptable rate. Just that i think an acceptable rate for me is 0.66 children/woman. That would lead to an annual decline in birth rate of 3.6% (formula is:
1-(0.66÷2)^(1÷30)) assuming women give birth at 30 y/o.Just to contrast this: The US' population (excluding Native Americans) grew steadily by approximately 3% annually from 1680 till 1880. Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
I don't think citing the US supports your case. You're talking about a country where the only time everyone is on one page, is interested in the same thing, a moment of cohesion, is the ads during superbowl. American culture may technically exist but it has close to zero depth. Regional identities are deeper, largely because immigrants clustered together, one source nation here, another one there.
It's also not really comparable because much of that increase was due to immigration, often whole families, also I think you meant more like 30%, not 3%. Niger has a growth rate of 3.66, a median age of about 15. Fifteen. Half are younger, half older than that. Politically, it's a complete shitshow that makes the Trump regime look sane. There's such a thing as too much teen spirit.
But you're missing the point that the population of Japan specifically is on the decline and has been for decades.
Even if we take out the cost of pensions for the elderly out of the equation, if people aren't having kids to replace themselves, there won't be enough working age people to fill every job needed.
For reference, the Japanese birth rate as of June 2024 was only 1.2. If that trend continues, in say 20-30 years, there will be about 1/2 of adults then as there are now.
The easiest and most immediate solution for Japan (and South Korea which is also having the same problem) would be to ease immigration so that more people can come in to work. But that doesn't help in the long run nor does it address the cultural and societal factors that have lead to this point. And even then, since both countries are so homogenous, it would be hard for natives to accept a huge influx of immigrants.