5 ms·

>But not marrying and not having children is not suicide, neither for the individual nor the society. Isn't it? Take away the moral connotations for a second.

>But not marrying and not having children is not suicide, neither for the individual nor the society. Isn't it? Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. Sure, not reproducing is not suicide in the same way that a shotgun in the mouth is. But isn't it, in the same way that refusing food is? After WWII, the UN adopted a definition of genocide that included "(d)imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group." If China were doing it to SK, we'd call it genocide. If SK is doing it to SK...? I'm not trying to assign blame here. But that's the point: whether you die in your bed surrounded by family, in your garage with the car exhaust on, or in a totalitarian purge---you are still dead. So, I don't know---neglect? decline? twilight? Sustainable (non-) growth? Call it whatever you want, <2.0 TFR reduces the population however anyone feels about it.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent, so this is not tautologically true, nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries.
- dropit_sphere 7y ago
  >Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent, Perhaps not exclusively, but in the main? If you are in the U.S., do you count yourself as a member of whichever indigenous people lived where you are before you? Would they? Would this change if you adopted their customs?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years, and only marginally so. >...nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries. Only with substantial immigration is this the case, which brings with it a whole host of other potential problems.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years No, it's been true that nations are memetic rather than genetic constructs as long as nations have existed, and migration and assimilation have existed and been factors for a much longer time than 50 years. Non-transitory sub-replacement levels of natural population growth may be a recent phenomenon, but the nature of nations being such that such does not tautologically spell doom has been true much longer.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      Ehh, this is just factually wrong and discounts the histories of Europe and e.g. Africa in such a grand way that it's hard to even know where to start. If you wanted to restrict your claim to something like "nations have memetic characteristics that often follow from genetic lineage that don't make membership in that nation strictly genetic" then I'd be inclined to agree. But back to the point, sup-replacement levels of natural population growth is a recent phenomenon and it's hard to say what comes next - since we don't have any perfectly analogous historical parallels.
oska 7y ago
Obviously there are still children being born in South Korea, just less of them than in recent times.
manfredo 7y ago
> Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. Technically, yes. At anything less than 2 births per woman (actually a bit more than that due to deaths before reproduction) a country will experience exponential decay, which approaches zero as time goes to infinity. An exponential decay in population is a lot less disruptive than exponential rise. The former introduces difficulties like an inverted population pyramid, and countries that experience it will have to make tough choices around restructuring social security and pensions. But exponential population increases create shortages of basic necessities like water and space. I don't think it's coincidence that educated wealthy countries tend to have dropping population growth.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
>If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. No, its population will shrink. It's implausible that this will continue to the death of the country.
solidsnack9000 7y ago
Suicide is a one-and-done deal. Population decline is gradual and reversible.
- dropit_sphere 7y ago
  Would you defend eugenics that way? If not, why not?
  - solidsnack9000 7y ago
    Am I defending suicide?
    - dropit_sphere 7y ago
      Fair enough.
goatinaboat 7y ago
If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. This is true in a sense, if you think of a country being defined genetically instead of culturally. But assimilating immigrants into a culture is often considered racist too these days. So in a practical sense you are correct even if your basic premise is wrong.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent, so this is not tautologically true, nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries.

dropit_sphere 7y ago
>Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent, Perhaps not exclusively, but in the main? If you are in the U.S., do you count yourself as a member of whichever indigenous people lived where you are before you? Would they? Would this change if you adopted their customs?
remarkEon 7y ago
>Countries are not defined exclusively by biological descent This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years, and only marginally so. >...nor is it even practically true, since negative natural growth with positive population growth had been observed in countries. Only with substantial immigration is this the case, which brings with it a whole host of other potential problems.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > This has become "true" in just the last ~50 years No, it's been true that nations are memetic rather than genetic constructs as long as nations have existed, and migration and assimilation have existed and been factors for a much longer time than 50 years. Non-transitory sub-replacement levels of natural population growth may be a recent phenomenon, but the nature of nations being such that such does not tautologically spell doom has been true much longer.
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Ehh, this is just factually wrong and discounts the histories of Europe and e.g. Africa in such a grand way that it's hard to even know where to start. If you wanted to restrict your claim to something like "nations have memetic characteristics that often follow from genetic lineage that don't make membership in that nation strictly genetic" then I'd be inclined to agree. But back to the point, sup-replacement levels of natural population growth is a recent phenomenon and it's hard to say what comes next - since we don't have any perfectly analogous historical parallels.

oska 7y ago

Obviously there are still children being born in South Korea, just less of them than in recent times.

manfredo 7y ago

> Take away the moral connotations for a second. If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. Technically, yes. At anything less than 2 births per woman (actually a bit more than that due to deaths before reproduction) a country will experience exponential decay, which approaches zero as time goes to infinity. An exponential decay in population is a lot less disruptive than exponential rise. The former introduces difficulties like an inverted population pyramid, and countries that experience it will have to make tough choices around restructuring social security and pensions. But exponential population increases create shortages of basic necessities like water and space. I don't think it's coincidence that educated wealthy countries tend to have dropping population growth.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

>If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. No, its population will shrink. It's implausible that this will continue to the death of the country.

solidsnack9000 7y ago

Suicide is a one-and-done deal. Population decline is gradual and reversible.

dropit_sphere 7y ago
Would you defend eugenics that way? If not, why not?
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Am I defending suicide?
  - dropit_sphere 7y ago
    Fair enough.

goatinaboat 7y ago

If a country's population does not reproduce, tautologically, it will die off. This is true in a sense, if you think of a country being defined genetically instead of culturally. But assimilating immigrants into a culture is often considered racist too these days. So in a practical sense you are correct even if your basic premise is wrong.