3 ms·

> Other countries have been dealing with Japan’s problem for decades now. Which countries are those? AFAIK, Japan is the one leading the trend in the demograph

> Other countries have been dealing with Japan’s problem for decades now. Which countries are those? AFAIK, Japan is the one leading the trend in the demographic crisis, followed by some Eastern European countries.

chaostheory 4y ago
(Copying my other comment) Canada has been unable to naturally replenish their population since 1972. Now they have one of the highest immigration rates in the developed world which has let them stave off Japan’s problems for decades, enabling their entitlement programs to continue functioning As for the reason for Canada’s birth rate woes since 1972, it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility). Abortion was only legalized in 1988 in Canada. Housing was affordable during that time and its economy was strong during the long period of consecutive population declines. Of course, like many countries a large portion of Canada’s population, including liberals, are now against immigration due to a combination of housing woes and a healthcare system in turmoil. Unfortunately, Canada has no choice unless they want to see their economy further crater and not have the working adult population to pay for socialized programs such as healthcare. According to statscan, Canada’s NIST, even if they drastically increase immigration; it will only slow down the age population bomb and not prevent it i.e. Retired elderly will still eventually outnumber both working adults and children one day too soon. The speed will likely accelerate due to the Canadian public’s growing distaste for immigration.
- kibwen 4y ago
  > it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility) Citation needed. Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime. People aren't having fewer kids because they're incapable of having kids, it's because they're making the choice not to.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Indeed. It does rather show how much this is a discussion among men with no female voices.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    I shouldn’t need to cite anything because it’s not new news, and Canada’s decline in birthdate occurred well before any major socioeconomic changes https://news.virginia.edu/content/male-fertility-declining-studies-show-environmental-toxins-could-be-reason https://news.virginia.edu/content/male-fertility-declining-s... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32168194/#:~:text=Summary%3A%20There%20exist%20substantial%20data,and%20exposure%20to%20environmental%20toxins https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32168194/#:~:text=Summary%3A... There’s plenty more on the topic with differing opinions on the root cause > Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime That’s what defines being unable to naturally replenish the population aka the age population bomb. Countries are below the 2.1 reproductive rate. Even the US went below in 2012. Canada has hit it in 1972. None of this is new or a revelation. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-new-population-bomb https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-new-popu... The only places not affected are in Central Africa. The theory is that pollution from industrialization results in less male fertility
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You are making a big jump from biological capacity to have children to population level childbirth outcomes. I have never seen infertility claimed as a leading cause in the scientific literature and there is vast amounts of contradictory data. The main drivers are lifestyle choices and availability of contraceptives. 1972 does not predate most socioeconomic changes like women entering the workforce and their education levels. Sexual intercourse and marriage rates are also huge factors. you can look at child birth demographics within countries. There are several demographics or groups that have much higher reproductive rates in there are no good reasons to think that they are somehow free from that impacts of pollution.

chaostheory 4y ago

(Copying my other comment) Canada has been unable to naturally replenish their population since 1972. Now they have one of the highest immigration rates in the developed world which has let them stave off Japan’s problems for decades, enabling their entitlement programs to continue functioning As for the reason for Canada’s birth rate woes since 1972, it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility). Abortion was only legalized in 1988 in Canada. Housing was affordable during that time and its economy was strong during the long period of consecutive population declines. Of course, like many countries a large portion of Canada’s population, including liberals, are now against immigration due to a combination of housing woes and a healthcare system in turmoil. Unfortunately, Canada has no choice unless they want to see their economy further crater and not have the working adult population to pay for socialized programs such as healthcare. According to statscan, Canada’s NIST, even if they drastically increase immigration; it will only slow down the age population bomb and not prevent it i.e. Retired elderly will still eventually outnumber both working adults and children one day too soon. The speed will likely accelerate due to the Canadian public’s growing distaste for immigration.

kibwen 4y ago
> it was not socioeconomic (it’s likely due to declining male fertility) Citation needed. Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime. People aren't having fewer kids because they're incapable of having kids, it's because they're making the choice not to.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Indeed. It does rather show how much this is a discussion among men with no female voices.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  I shouldn’t need to cite anything because it’s not new news, and Canada’s decline in birthdate occurred well before any major socioeconomic changes https://news.virginia.edu/content/male-fertility-declining-studies-show-environmental-toxins-could-be-reason https://news.virginia.edu/content/male-fertility-declining-s... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32168194/#:~:text=Summary%3A%20There%20exist%20substantial%20data,and%20exposure%20to%20environmental%20toxins https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32168194/#:~:text=Summary%3A... There’s plenty more on the topic with differing opinions on the root cause > Male fertility hasn't fallen anywhere near precipitously enough to make a father incapable of having a mere 2.1 children over the course of his entire reproductive lifetime That’s what defines being unable to naturally replenish the population aka the age population bomb. Countries are below the 2.1 reproductive rate. Even the US went below in 2012. Canada has hit it in 1972. None of this is new or a revelation. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-new-population-bomb https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-new-popu... The only places not affected are in Central Africa. The theory is that pollution from industrialization results in less male fertility
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You are making a big jump from biological capacity to have children to population level childbirth outcomes. I have never seen infertility claimed as a leading cause in the scientific literature and there is vast amounts of contradictory data. The main drivers are lifestyle choices and availability of contraceptives. 1972 does not predate most socioeconomic changes like women entering the workforce and their education levels. Sexual intercourse and marriage rates are also huge factors. you can look at child birth demographics within countries. There are several demographics or groups that have much higher reproductive rates in there are no good reasons to think that they are somehow free from that impacts of pollution.