It's amusing that Japan has become singled out on this, like some kind of a trope, when it's not even at the bottom. Last I heard HK has a fertility rate of 0.7

It's amusing that Japan has become singled out on this, like some kind of a trope, when it's not even at the bottom. Last I heard HK has a fertility rate of 0.7. There is no crisis. There's problems, but not to the level that a mainstream western rag wants to make out. There's a known migratory pattern that once people retire, they don't need to be commuting to an office anymore, and so they move out far from the cities, where the cost of living is significantly lower, to stretch their pensions. I don't imagine retirees have many kids. So I wouldn't be surprised if there's a great number of such places. What everyone who bemoans this situation needs to answer is: what population number is ideal, and why? There's no clear rational being put forward by anyone why 100M is not fine, or why 50M is not fine, or why 200M is a must, or whatever. All they say is "more is better", and that's pure ideology and political bias. If a few towns fade away, so what. They weren't there originally anyway.