4 ms·

Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One chil

Well, the problem won't be for just one generation. If the birthrate remains the same, the same problem will repeat itself generation after generation. One child per woman means: 32 - 16 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 1. Furthermore, it seems no problem to cut the birthrate, but virtually impossible to push it up again.

ajross 14y ago
True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.
- nmcfarl 14y ago
  Mistercrow asked the question above -I'll ask it here: Why do you think it won't repeat? To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
  - DigitalTurk 14y ago
    But is there a (modern) society that had a birthrate drop like this and perished as a result?
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    No modern society has seen the birthrate drop like this at all, regardless of the outcome, so we are in a bit of undefined territory. That doesn't mean it is bad, just differnt (which is enough to get a lot of people needlessly alarmed, sadly).
tomjen3 14y ago
Virtually impossible? Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago. And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth, as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into adulthood just fine.
- greenyoda 14y ago
  It's biologically possible, but not economically possible. What would convince a couple who don't think they could afford to raise even a single child today suddenly decide that they could afford to raise ten children?
- eriksank 14y ago
  The entire infrastructure for this kind of endeavour -- that is, having lots of children -- has gone and not only in Japan. Biology does not work by restoring the birthrate, I suspect. I guess it rather works by exponentially growing the sub-populations who still have these high birthrates: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16. In other words, I strongly suspect that most of the current Japanese population will have no descendants in a few generations, while a small, distinct subgroup will produce all of the population. So, all Japanese in a hundred years or so will descend from the few Japanese that tend to make ten children today.

ajross 14y ago

True, but not of the form we're seeing (e.g. the base for the exponent surely isn't 2!). (It also bears mentioning that other factors like increases in working lifetime and overall lifetime counteract the birthrate decreases). Right now we're seeing a "cliff" due to a change in the birthrate due to the very rapid change to an industrialized urban economy. That won't repeat.

nmcfarl 14y ago
Mistercrow asked the question above -I'll ask it here: Why do you think it won't repeat? To my knowledge no other modern society has had a birthrate drop like this - to below this radically replacement and has then stabilized the birthrate at the replacement rate (or above). This really could be free fall...
- DigitalTurk 14y ago
  But is there a (modern) society that had a birthrate drop like this and perished as a result?
- tomjen3 14y ago
  No modern society has seen the birthrate drop like this at all, regardless of the outcome, so we are in a bit of undefined territory. That doesn't mean it is bad, just differnt (which is enough to get a lot of people needlessly alarmed, sadly).

tomjen3 14y ago

Virtually impossible? Hardly. One generation where the average is 10 children per woman will boost the economy and permanently change the demographics; it may sound completely unrealistic, but it was the norm only a few generations ago. And no, it didn't end when a lot of the children stopped dying in childbirth, as my grandfather had something like 8 brothers, and all of them made it into adulthood just fine.

greenyoda 14y ago
It's biologically possible, but not economically possible. What would convince a couple who don't think they could afford to raise even a single child today suddenly decide that they could afford to raise ten children?
eriksank 14y ago
The entire infrastructure for this kind of endeavour -- that is, having lots of children -- has gone and not only in Japan. Biology does not work by restoring the birthrate, I suspect. I guess it rather works by exponentially growing the sub-populations who still have these high birthrates: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16. In other words, I strongly suspect that most of the current Japanese population will have no descendants in a few generations, while a small, distinct subgroup will produce all of the population. So, all Japanese in a hundred years or so will descend from the few Japanese that tend to make ten children today.