3 ms·

This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To

This is the opposite of a problem. Wether intentionally or not, Japan is showing the world the only way the whole _world_ can survive: by having less babies. To expect growth at a time of such overpopulation is cruel and hurtful to the entire human population.

altcognito 14y ago
No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or reason that it would just yet.
- lucian303 14y ago
  Why? Out of the author's solutions that have been discussed in Japan for decades, only one involves children (and that's related to daycare, not more babies), and the others involve changing a culture that needs to change to adapt to this. Then they would be an example to the world. If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
  - altcognito 14y ago
    Prove it? I think the burden is on you my friend, for yours is the claim that is extraordinary. The human population is growing easily. Food and space is ample. Hell, we grow food to make energy for vehicles, not people. No, everybody can't live like Americans, but not everybody wants to live like Americans. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to live like Americans. (You may be amongst them!) But for you to suggest that it is morally improper to have children because the world can't sustain it -- no, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to this non-sense. You go ahead and prove that the world isn't supporting the population without utilizing corrupt governments. It is insanity that some would have us roll back to the population and energy consumption 1800's because they have cannot come up with a modern solution. Last, but not least, China reduced it's population. Would you call it a stellar example of environmental responsibility? Your problem is that you're conflating two completely different problems. Overpopulation (for today) is a non-existent problem. Fix destitution (a real problem) in the developing world, and birth rates will drop naturally. tl;dr I make some assumptions about environmentalists. Fight poverty, not birth rates.
- hudibras 14y ago
  At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that. Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer people using it? Sounds pretty good to me.
  - kklimonda 14y ago
    It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in 1920.
    - hudibras 14y ago
      The per-capita productivity growth rate in Japan the last twenty years has been around 1%/year (down from the 4-5% of the 1970-1990 era). At that rate, the average worker in Japan will be 2.4 times as productive in 2100 than today. In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30 years.
  - altcognito 14y ago
    As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I find your comments amusing. In fairness, comparing Detroit to Tokyo is like comparing night and day. This isn't to say there wouldn't be adjustment issues though.
    - hudibras 14y ago
      If by "Detroit area" you mean the Detroit metropolitan area, it's only lost 3% of its population between the last two censuses, not exactly a huge exodus. Around 15,000 net loss each year out of 4M+. If you mean just the city of Detroit, then the comparison with rural Japan is not too far off: young people moving away from their homes because there are no jobs, leaving behind their parents and grandparents. Detroit is the rural Japanese fishing village with 1 grade-school kid in this analogy.

altcognito 14y ago

No, as others have pointed out in the thread, you need 2.1-2.3 to reach replacement of population. In general, the planet can "easily" support the number of people we have. While I don't think there would be serious harm in a happy, voluntary reduction in the overall population, this isn't a sustainable long term (100's of years) trend. While I would like to think we're going to return to replacement levels of child bearing, I don't see any evidence or reason that it would just yet.

lucian303 14y ago
Why? Out of the author's solutions that have been discussed in Japan for decades, only one involves children (and that's related to daycare, not more babies), and the others involve changing a culture that needs to change to adapt to this. Then they would be an example to the world. If the planet cannot "easily" support the number of people we have now, please prove how. Because right now it isn't.
- altcognito 14y ago
  Prove it? I think the burden is on you my friend, for yours is the claim that is extraordinary. The human population is growing easily. Food and space is ample. Hell, we grow food to make energy for vehicles, not people. No, everybody can't live like Americans, but not everybody wants to live like Americans. There are a lot of Americans who don't want to live like Americans. (You may be amongst them!) But for you to suggest that it is morally improper to have children because the world can't sustain it -- no, I'm not going to sit on the sidelines and listen to this non-sense. You go ahead and prove that the world isn't supporting the population without utilizing corrupt governments. It is insanity that some would have us roll back to the population and energy consumption 1800's because they have cannot come up with a modern solution. Last, but not least, China reduced it's population. Would you call it a stellar example of environmental responsibility? Your problem is that you're conflating two completely different problems. Overpopulation (for today) is a non-existent problem. Fix destitution (a real problem) in the developing world, and birth rates will drop naturally. tl;dr I make some assumptions about environmentalists. Fight poverty, not birth rates.
hudibras 14y ago
At the current birthrate/deathrate, Japan's population will be 60 million by 2100. That's the same population as in the 1920s. So the same population but with almost 180 years of technologic and productivity advances? I think most people would like that. Tokyo literally employees people to shove commuters into rush-hour trains. Who wouldn't want to live in a Tokyo with the same infrastructure but with 40% fewer people using it? Sounds pretty good to me.
- kklimonda 14y ago
  It's not about the number of people, but the age distribution. In 2100 half of the Japanese may be over 65 years old, and it definitely wasn't the case in 1920.
  - hudibras 14y ago
    The per-capita productivity growth rate in Japan the last twenty years has been around 1%/year (down from the 4-5% of the 1970-1990 era). At that rate, the average worker in Japan will be 2.4 times as productive in 2100 than today. In the long run, productivity growth and technological changes will dwarf demographics. I'm not talking huge Mr. Fusion-style breakthroughs, just small improvements that we all see every day. The Radio Shack catalog from 1982 that was posted here a few days ago is a great example. The improvements since then happened so gradually that we don't even notice them until we look back 30 years.
- altcognito 14y ago
  As someone who lives in the Detroit area, I find your comments amusing. In fairness, comparing Detroit to Tokyo is like comparing night and day. This isn't to say there wouldn't be adjustment issues though.
  - hudibras 14y ago
    If by "Detroit area" you mean the Detroit metropolitan area, it's only lost 3% of its population between the last two censuses, not exactly a huge exodus. Around 15,000 net loss each year out of 4M+. If you mean just the city of Detroit, then the comparison with rural Japan is not too far off: young people moving away from their homes because there are no jobs, leaving behind their parents and grandparents. Detroit is the rural Japanese fishing village with 1 grade-school kid in this analogy.