Talk About Marriage banner
41 - 60 of 69 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
9,651 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
@QuestionAssumptions I think you are misunderstanding much of what I am talking about. I am not really talking about population engineering. I am talking about reproductive rights of the individual and the individual's agency and ability to chose for themselves what is best for them. Frankly, if people say this will reduce world populations, I think that is good news and hope it does, but that is not what I am getting at at all.

I believe in the individuals right to choose their own reproductive and family dynamics. Yes that means if someone does not want to have any kids at all, I believe that is their right and their choice and no one should have the right to pressure or cajole of judge them otherwise and I think it is wrong for religious organizations and nosey aunts and intrusive grandmothers to pressure them otherwise.

But that also means that if some Amish or Morman woman truly and sincerely wants to have child after child until her uterus falls out and her pelvic bones break as she's walking down the hall, if that is her true informed decision, then I will also support her as long as she is able to properly support and care for those children.

Same is true for the men, if a guy truely and sincerely wants to toil in the fields 16 hours a day and live hand to mouth to support and feed a large family and he is not pressuring or coercing his partner against her will nor allowing himself to be pressured or coerced, then I also support his right as long as he is able to properly care for and support a large family.

HOWEVER, that is often not what is actually happening in those communities now is it. These aren't college educated, self supporting 25 year old women with professional careers with access to safe and reliable contraception that are making informed conscious decisions to have a dozen children. These are poorly educated and isolated teenage girls that are being sold off in marriage to older men and are being kept from being educated and denied access to contraception and are being compelled by religious leaders and community elders and even their own families to basically be sex slaves and underage breeding stock to create more sex slaves and breeding stock.

And I'm not sure the men have it a whole lot better even though they aren't the ones actually carrying and crapping out all the babies, They are the ones having to work the plows and bail the hay and shovel the manure 16 hours a day to keep them all fed. And sure, they get to bang the 15 year old at first, but how bitter and pissed off and stressed is that bride 10 years and 7 kids later. How pleasant being around all of that going to be?

That's where my personal beef is. I think it is evil and wrong and I hope people stand up for themselves and take back their own reproductive agency. If that causes some kind of population correction, then that is how it was meant to be.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,181 Posts
This is a simple matter of math. If people, on average, do not have enough children to replace themselves, then the population will decline. If the population continues to decline, the population will eventually go to 0 -- extinction. Do the math. If the "most people" who do "want to have kids" don't want more than 1 or 2 and a growing number of people don't have any, they will not have enough kids to replace the people who are dying. The average fertility rate must be at least 2.1 to replace the current population. It is already below that number in every developed country except Israel. It is headed below that number globally. Wanting to have a child or two is not enough. The people you imagine will make up the gap simply aren't there and haven't been for decades. This isn't the 1950s.
I'm going to take a hint from your ID and question your assumption that is implied here, intentionally or not. Why are you assuming that this is a trend that will continue without turning around?

Do I think humans will actually go extinct? No. Before that, either people will decide they need to have more children willingly or the prevailing culture will become dominated by people and cultures that resort to societal pressure and expectations to promote reproduction at or above replacement. Why? Because they'll be the ones having the children who inherit the future. How pleasant or unpleasant that will be for people who don't want to conform will depend on the specifics of who winds up in charge.
And while this is my point, this one statement seem to be at odds with everything else you are putting out? If we are going to make that swing back the other way, what is it that you are going on about?

So what happens if we follow your ideal of "better" and get rid of those high-fertility communities that use societal pressure and expectations to maintain higher fertility rates and stop people in the countries currently providing immigrants to offset low fertility rates in the industrialized world to only have a fewer number of dedicated people to only have 1 or 2 children like their dedicated counterparts in the industrialized world? Population crashes. And, remember, the people you are holding up as the ideal have fertility rates well below the national average because it's being offset by the people who you might see as irresponsible or pressured but are still having quite a few children, though far less than they once did.

You can see this at work in Japan, where it isn't being offset by immigration and their fertility rate isn't boosted by religious groups. Their population is declining. It will halve by the end of the century. A third of their population will be 65+ in the next two decades. That's what happens when your ideal isn't offset by immigration from places that don't follow your ideal. By what measure is that "better"?
Given that "better" is a subjective value, there are all kinds of measures that can show this trend to be better. Do you have any kind of objective criteria as to why these trends are bad? I understand that you and many others feel that population crashes and lowering populations are bad, but that's opinion not objective fact. Heck, some are of the opinion that the planet would be better off if humans went extinct.

A bit of wisdom from a former co-worker and friend who had children before I did after hearing me talk about why I wasn't sure my wife and I were ready. He told me, "There is never a good time to have children. If you wait until the right time to have children, you'll never have children." That's where I think a lot of people are. They get so wrapped up in the ideal that you shouldn't have children unless everything is right that they wind up having few or none. The reason why population grow throughout human history through famines, wars, oppression, slavery, and genocide is that people had children despite that because they couldn't take a pill or get an implant to stop it. And they managed to raise enough of those less-than-ideal children to the point where they could have their own children. Now, people would simply rather not have them and have the ability not to without resorting to celibacy.
I fully agree with this bit of advice, but it seems to me to be rather non-sequitur to the topic. It might be pertinent to a topic of a trend of people to wait to have children until it's too late and then complain about it being too late.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,181 Posts
And this is why cultures that put obligation and expectations on people to think beyond their own self-interests and individual needs will inherit the future. You are playing a short game. They are playing a long game.
And why is that better? Sure we can say it's better for a sustainable line of people on a historic scale. But this now puts forth the question of quantity vs quality. For some quantity will be better, while for others quality is better.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
A lot of people don't want to hear this but marriage is dying out anyway, particularly in the west.
There some exceptions and some people have good marriages in this day and age.
Yes there are some women that still have a few traditional values like the old days but by and large the old values and things like that are long gone.
It is really unfortunate and this is deterring guys from getting married.
In today`s world it`s hardly worth bothering to get hitched and a waste or time considering the majority of marriages are lucky to last 5 years.
80% of divorces today are filed by wives and now with the no fault divorce laws it`s simply not worth the effort, the marriage certificate is not worth the paper it`s printed on.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I'm going to take a hint from your ID and question your assumption that is implied here, intentionally or not. Why are you assuming that this is a trend that will continue without turning around?
I don't. I gave three ways that this could play out (four, if you count artificial wombs). Two of them (three with artificial wombs) would change the trend.

But I also explained in one of my posts why I don't think it will magically change on it's own. Many countries have tried to increase their birth rates. None have succeeded through various different kinds of means. And as I've also pointed out, this isn't a fluke that's effecting one or just a few countries. It effects every single industrialized nation except one, where it is being offset by a large religious group that has a lot of children. I'm not extrapolating from a few anecdotes or focusing on a handful of worst cases. I'm looking at the whole picture and what I see is not hopeful.

And while this is my point, this one statement seem to be at odds with everything else you are putting out? If we are going to make that swing back the other way, what is it that you are going on about?
Because there are two ways we can swing back. One is for people to decide to have more children. For that to happen, I think we need a shift in the culture away from what's been programmed into us since the 1950s, that there are too many people, population is growing too fast, pregnancy is terrible, etc. We've been programmed with an agenda from a world where population was doubling every 20-30 years and never got off of it when that was no longer true and hasn't been for decades.

China has experienced this problem with their 1 child policy. It was an extreme measure to stop unsustainable population growth but now that China's population is in decline, they want to reverse it. They now allow up to 3 children. The problem? Everyone still only wants one child because that became the cultural norm.

So part of what I'm going on about is that the soft and sensible way to fix this problem is to make people aware of it, that this isn't the 1950s anymore, and maybe they should be choosing to have more children and not expecting other people to have them to keep things going, because they aren't.

And while I consider myself pretty conservative and religious, the second way things could swing back is for conservative and religious cultures to become dominant that not only expect women to have lots of babies but may not respect women's choices or rights in the process. I think that if things don't correct themselves by choice, they will get corrected this way. But what we get may be pretty unpleasant for a lot of people, which is why so much of the world moved away from that approach in the first place. While I think things shifted too far in the wrong direction, I don't want to see things swing too far back in the other direction, either.

In reality, everything corrects itself eventually. If we don't care what form that takes, then we shouldn't go on about anything, then, should we?

Given that "better" is a subjective value, there are all kinds of measures that can show this trend to be better. Do you have any kind of objective criteria as to why these trends are bad? I understand that you and many others feel that population crashes and lowering populations are bad, but that's opinion not objective fact. Heck, some are of the opinion that the planet would be better off if humans went extinct.
I've been talking about specific downsides. You can decide if you think they are better or worse yourself because, yes, it's subjective. But I think it's pretty meaningless to claim anything is better without explaining the measure by which it's better. Don't assume it's going to be self-evident to others just because it sounds better to you.

I've given the reasons why falling populations are bad and they haven't been countered. For example, the social welfare programs of the industrialized world are based on the idea of many young people supporting fewer elderly people to keep them going. When the number of young people equals the number of elderly people, what happens to the tax burden on young people. And when the parent of one child or two children gets sick or needs help, who does that burden fall on? And when they are trying to have and care for children that they've had later in life at the same time, what happens? See article here.

And if you think the world would be better of with humans, then you might think we'd be better of dying off as quickly as possible and may see this all as a wonderful thing. If that's how you feel, be honest about it, but don't be surprised if a lot of people consider you a monster for believing that. You also might not care if you are childless and don't care what happens after you are dead, since most of the problems won't happen until then. Or you might not care if you are wealthy enough that you believe you and your descendants can ride it out. Or you might not care if if you are a religious and conservative person and look forward to a future where feminism and liberalism make themselves extinct and your kind rule the Earth.

My point is to be honest about your standards and let people judge them and your agenda based on them. If you are a misanthrope, just say so.

I fully agree with this bit of advice, but it seems to me to be rather non-sequitur to the topic. It might be pertinent to a topic of a trend of people to wait to have children until it's too late and then complain about it being too late.
You keep talking about how most people "want" children and to get married. That's true. But there is a disconnect between what people say they want and what they are doing, and there are a lot of people who are complaining that they didn't get to do what they wanted before their biological clock stopped ticking and that is playing a very large role in the low fertility rates.

A lot of people claim that the reason why people have so few children or have no children in the developed world is that ti's "too expensive", even when they claim to want them. But that's nonsense. I live in one of the most expensive parts of America and you don't need to live a life of poverty to have 3+ children here. It's simply a matter of priorities and trade-offs. No, maybe you can't live in Manhattan anymore and go out to bars and buy dinner out every night like you used to. Maybe you can't have the full package or subscribe to every streaming service known to man. Maybe you need to keep your car for 10 years instead of getting a new one every 2-3 years. None of that requires poverty of neglecting children what they need.

But for now, that's an easy trade-off for a lot of people because they are counting on other people to have the children they don't. Or immigrants to come in to take care of them when they are elderly and in a nursing home. What many don't realize is just how far fertility rates have fallen, even in the countries providing immigrants, and what demographics shifting toward a huge elderly population is going to mean for the world. And if someone does realize that and doesn't want to have children or more children, that's fine. But I at least want them to be looking at what's really going on and not riding on programming from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s because they think Paul R. Ehrlich Population Bomb or books like Stand on Zanzibar are still reflective of how things are. And if some misanthropes, radical environmentalists, and people who don't care what happens once they are dead don't care, then that's fine with me.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
And why is that better? Sure we can say it's better for a sustainable line of people on a historic scale. But this now puts forth the question of quantity vs quality. For some quantity will be better, while for others quality is better.
I didn't tell you it was better. I explained how it will play out. Your quality approach is playing a short game. You and your children may have a wonderful life that you honestly believe is better than those lived by those who have many more children. But the trade-off is that you will likely never have grandchildren or great grandchildren if your descendants have the same priorities that you do and grow up in a culture that doesn't promote having children. The people who are having lots of children, on the other hand, are pretty much certain to inherit the future that you leave empty for them. I can't tell you or force you to care about what happens after you are dead. If you think your way plays out better than their way, then go for it but don't look away from that future or hand-wave it away.

Again, my point is be honest about what's being compared and the criteria upon which it's being judged in the end.

Personally, I find it pretty bizarre that we live in the most luxurious and peasants period in all of human history yet we are determined to be unhappy and even though our lives have been built upon endless generations of ancestors who endured hardships that we would find unbearable, so many people are happy to be the end of that line. YMMV
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
@QuestionAssumptions I think you are misunderstanding much of what I am talking about. I am not really talking about population engineering. I am talking about reproductive rights of the individual and the individual's agency and ability to chose for themselves what is best for them. Frankly, if people say this will reduce world populations, I think that is good news and hope it does, but that is not what I am getting at at all.
I am also talking about the same thing you say you are. Let me put it maybe as simply as I can: feminism has no future if there are no feminists in the future.

I gave you three possible ways that this could play out -- four if you count artificial wombs. Let's ignore extinction, since that's the one you seemed to get hung up on, and artificial wombs, since a lot would depend on how it's done. Let's look at the other two:

1) Women in developed countries with strong women's rights, education, and economic status decide to have more children, thus creating a future for developed countries where women have strong rights, education, and economic status.

2) Women in developed countries continue to reproduce below replacement and larger percentages of the world population become dominated by cultures that don't value women's rights, education, or economic status but promote them having a lot of children over time, until they become the dominant culture.

Unless we get artificial wombs, one of those two things is almost certainly going to happen in the near future before we go extinct, if not globally, then in many countries. Which outcome would you prefer? You can't pick "low birth rate but feminists keep control". That's not going to happen no matter how badly you want it to.

I believe in the individuals right to choose their own reproductive and family dynamics. Yes that means if someone does not want to have any kids at all, I believe that is their right and their choice and no one should have the right to pressure or cajole of judge them otherwise and I think it is wrong for religious organizations and nosey aunts and intrusive grandmothers to pressure them otherwise.
That's great. In developed countries, a majority feels that way. What happens when 30% of the population feels the way you do and 70% of the population doesn't? Or the population drops below the point where it can maintain the land occupied by it's political borders?

But that also means that if some Amish or Morman woman truly and sincerely wants to have child after child until her uterus falls out and her pelvic bones break as she's walking down the hall, if that is her true informed decision, then I will also support her as long as she is able to properly support and care for those children.
Mormon fertility rates have also dropped substantially, by the way. Take a look.

The question is, if you have children, do you want your descendants living in a land where nearly everyone is Amish and the norm is to do things the Amish way?

Same is true for the men, if a guy truely and sincerely wants to toil in the fields 16 hours a day and live hand to mouth to support and feed a large family and he is not pressuring or coercing his partner against her will nor allowing himself to be pressured or coerced, then I also support his right as long as he is able to properly care for and support a large family.
And if his descendants wind up living in society that shuns people who live that way because the predominant culture frowns upon it, is that OK?

HOWEVER, that is often not what is actually happening in those communities now is it. These aren't college educated, self supporting 25 year old women with professional careers with access to safe and reliable contraception that are making informed conscious decisions to have a dozen children. These are poorly educated and isolated teenage girls that are being sold off in marriage to older men and are being kept from being educated and denied access to contraception and are being compelled by religious leaders and community elders and even their own families to basically be sex slaves and underage breeding stock to create more sex slaves and breeding stock.
And how many of those women are descendants of men and women who were enslaved, impoverished, and abused by those in power? How many of those women are descendants of women who lived lives at levels of poverty they probably can't even imagine? Yet because those earlier women had and raised children, those women exist today. The people who didn't have children or gave up left no heirs.

For the vast majority of people, nobody is going to care if you lived or died or what you did for a career a hundred years from now if you leave no children behind. Unless you do something that deserves mention in a history book, nobody is going to know your name or care about you unless they are researching their family genealogy. That may not matter if you don't care what your children do or what happens after you are dead, but it's worth considering if you do care.

And I'm not sure the men have it a whole lot better even though they aren't the ones actually carrying and crapping out all the babies, They are the ones having to work the plows and bail the hay and shovel the manure 16 hours a day to keep them all fed. And sure, they get to bang the 15 year old at first, but how bitter and pissed off and stressed is that bride 10 years and 7 kids later. How pleasant being around all of that going to be?
I don't disagree with the point you are making. My point is that the whole future may look like that unless the people who do things differently can maintain control. They can't maintain control if they can't replace themselves while others who think differently do. Remember, the industrialized world's fertility rate is below replacement including the people you are talking about, who compensate for even lower fertility rates among the people who believe are doing everything right. Fertility rates are inversely proportional to income, education, and so on. If you fixed things for the people still "crapping out all the babies" in the industrialized world, the national fertility rates would drop far lower than they already are.

That's where my personal beef is. I think it is evil and wrong and I hope people stand up for themselves and take back their own reproductive agency. If that causes some kind of population correction, then that is how it was meant to be.
It won't cause a "population correction". The "correction" is going to be a version of what's illustrated in Idiocracy. Eventually the people "crapping out babies" will become the dominate culture and everyone else will have to live by their rules. And, no, you can't count on the culture you are talking about co-opting, absorbing, and converting endless numbers of people who think differently as their own numbers decline.

If you want to protect the sort of society you describe, then you should have and raise the sort of children that will preserve it in the future instead of leaving the future to people "crapping out babies" who have a culture that you find distasteful or worse.

In other words, I'm trying to tell you how to protect the future you want. It involves having and raising the children that will populate it instead of hoping that people born and raised into a very different culture will make it happen for your descendants. And don't be surprised when sub-replacement fertility ends badly for the world being the way you'd prefer it to be.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,181 Posts
So part of what I'm going on about is that the soft and sensible way to fix this problem is to make people aware of it, that this isn't the 1950s anymore, and maybe they should be choosing to have more children and not expecting other people to have them to keep things going, because they aren't.
I'm ok with this, as long as you are presenting this as opinion and simply pushing forth your perceived solution to the perceived problem

I've given the reasons why falling populations are bad and they haven't been countered. For example, the social welfare programs of the industrialized world are based on the idea of many young people supporting fewer elderly people to keep them going. When the number of young people equals the number of elderly people, what happens to the tax burden on young people. And when the parent of one child or two children gets sick or needs help, who does that burden fall on? And when they are trying to have and care for children that they've had later in life at the same time, what happens? See article here.
I think that this example indicates more the problem with the program, and its use as a solution to a given problem. It made a bad assumption that the population of said country would always be high enough to sustain such a program. When it comes down to it, that country could see a population drop while the world population continues to rise. For that matter a war could cause a sudden population drop, especially among the younger adults who are supposed to supporting the older one. Even while the birth rate could eventually make up for the war loss, until that new generation is old enough to generate the sustaining of the older ones, the problem still exists. So I hold that example to be not be a good example for this problem you bring up.

And if you think the world would be better of with humans, then you might think we'd be better of dying off as quickly as possible and may see this all as a wonderful thing. If that's how you feel, be honest about it, but don't be surprised if a lot of people consider you a monster for believing that. You also might not care if you are childless and don't care what happens after you are dead, since most of the problems won't happen until then. Or you might not care if you are wealthy enough that you believe you and your descendants can ride it out. Or you might not care if if you are a religious and conservative person and look forward to a future where feminism and liberalism make themselves extinct and your kind rule the Earth.

My point is to be honest about your standards and let people judge them and your agenda based on them. If you are a misanthrope, just say so.
I don't personally. I just noted that there are people who do hold that opinion. I'm just able to look at other perspectives and present them.

You keep talking about how most people "want" children and to get married.
Not me. I think you are confusing me with another poster. I mean, I do see where many are wanting children, and even see where many are trying hard, with some not getting anywhere. But I've not put it out as an argument yet, that I recall.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I'm ok with this, as long as you are presenting this as opinion and simply pushing forth your perceived solution to the perceived problem
I mentioned ways that things could go. I want people to think about them, which way they'd prefer things go. and how to get to that end.

I think that this example indicates more the problem with the program, and its use as a solution to a given problem. It made a bad assumption that the population of said country would always be high enough to sustain such a program. When it comes down to it, that country could see a population drop while the world population continues to rise. For that matter a war could cause a sudden population drop, especially among the younger adults who are supposed to supporting the older one. Even while the birth rate could eventually make up for the war loss, until that new generation is old enough to generate the sustaining of the older ones, the problem still exists. So I hold that example to be not be a good example for this problem you bring up.
Sure, but we're hip deep in it and the people who are elderly can't just change the past and adapt if things change on them. That's the problem with demographic problems like this. They happen slowly but changing the course is like turning a ship. Changes also happen slowly and things can break before they can be averted.

I don't personally. I just noted that there are people who do hold that opinion. I'm just able to look at other perspectives and present them.
I've seen all different perspectives on the topic.

Not me. I think you are confusing me with another poster. I mean, I do see where many are wanting children, and even see where many are trying hard, with some not getting anywhere. But I've not put it out as an argument yet, that I recall.
Correct. Sorry about that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
511 Posts
There's a lot of info and a lot to unpack there. I haven't read all the articles yet but my first impulse is we really need to stop blaming volcanos on sexual autonomy LOL :D

As far as economy, all social and demographic trends effect economy. For example, If there is a significant decrease in birth rate, the diaper, formula, baby bottle etc industries will be negatively effected of course. Historical data will show that economies supported by the traditional, married, nuclear family units because historically that was the predominant social and consumer structure.

If marriage and birth rates decline, some industries and economies will suffer and others will emerge and flourish. Diaper, bottle, formula and mini van industries may decline, but motorcycle, sports car and designer clothing industries will increase.
Yellowstone? ;)

My point is that no civilization could benefit from decadence but fell apart due to a significant drop in its productivity levels in the aftermath. Sexual autonomy sounds great in theory but it promotes individualism at the expense of familyhood. Sexuality was a motive for marriage but not anymore. Now people are fine with FWB arrangements, and many do not feel the need to commit and create stable family units. Sleeping around can take a toll on human minds as well. I have provided valuable information in support of each point in my previous response.

Birth rates are plummeting. Authentic marriage rates have declined to the extent that politicans felt the need to recognize cohabitation as common law marriage. There are additional side effects like Incelism, MGTOW and RED PILL. Mainstream is focused on these side effects instead of recognizing the real problem. Signs of decay are already around you.

Bro, do you think that motorcycle, sports cars, and designer clothing industries can help sustain economy of a big country? My country have these industries and its economy is in shambles.

Industrial growth is necessary for any country to prosper and compete with others. It cannot otherwise.

Unless you are aiming to become another Russia or less.

I can't really comment on gay violence because none of that is in my wheelhouse, but there has always been a correlation between violence and crime and other social ills associated with concentrations of single males. Take a look at the communities right off the main gate of any military post will illustrate that.

But is that due to men being unmarried or a lack of available females and groups of guys walking around with full tanks and too much time and beer money on their hands?
Yes, men can be absolute d***** to each other. This happens in some online platforms as well. This should be stopped.

Moralistic culture, education system, and familial responsibilities can help civilize men, or a large number of men in any country.

In other words, take a group of young single males and concentrate them in a place where there is not a comparable number of single females available to them or where most of the females are married and mate guarded, then yes, there is going to be drunkenness and fighting and general mayhem.

But if single people are distributed somewhat equally across a given population, will those problems still persist? I dunno, that can be a point of discussion and conjecture. Maybe. Maybe not.
A large concentration of single men will do what they want to do in any residential location. They will affect local culture. Locals can tell them to respect local customs but there are no guarantees for absolute compliance.

I have seen it all first hand.

Now on the issue of school shooters and mass murderers being fatherless, that is what Dad Starting Over was talking about and the questions being posed - - - If only the people who actually want to be married and be parents were the ones who were doing it and the others were allowed to pursue their own interests without being pressured or made to feel less than for not wanting traditional marriage and family, would their be less abandoned and neglected children and fewer children brought up in broken and dysfunctional homes???
Bro, if you leave people to their own devices, do you expect them all to behave responsibly? :)

It is in the best interest of any civilization to transform its inhabitants into productive nationals to serve it in meaningful ways. This is possible with institutions that teach people moralistic ways of life. Parents also have to take responsibility. Everything is tied to stable nuclear family units and morality at grassroots level.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
How is reproducing below replacement level "adapting" as opposed to riding a path toward an evolutionary dead end? Leaving behind fewer children and having a declining population is not how evolutionary success is measured.



Japan is currently losing around a million people every 3-4 years and will have half the population by the end of the century that it had at the start of the century. In the next two decades, a third of Japan's population will be 65+. Who is going to support them? Google "Sandwich Couples Japan Parents Children". Japan's economy never recovered from the 1980s bubble bursting, their national debt is over 250% of GDP, and there are a lot of young people who are having trouble finding work. Why? Because when you have fewer people and fewer children, you also need fewer workers. Yes, I know everyone tries to put a happy face on Japan and likes to claim that automation will save them, but Japan's current trajectory won't carry it very far into the future.
Reproducing below replacement level is "adapting" because we are way, way, way above the level we need to safely keep the species going and are probably damaging our host to the point of impacting it's habitability. For 99% of human history we've had less than a billion people and have managed to evolve, survive little ice ages, plagues, and whatever else we got hit with and you guys act like we're going to suddenly die out if we start dropping below 5 billion for some reason. :unsure:

As far as Japan goes, high debt is a problem many countries are going to have to face, us included, and endless breeding and inflating it away was never a realistic solution. At some point we were going to reach a point where there were too many of us and that time has come. It would be smarter to deal with ourselves rather than trying to pass it on to the next generation to deal with. Even if that means a few headaches, including being more hands on in taking care of your parents instead of just dumping them off on some low wage foreigner to deal with. And if young people in Japan are having trouble finding a job they must not be looking in the right place because there's a labor shortage going on right now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,721 Posts
Reproducing below replacement level is "adapting" because we are way, way, way above the level we need to safely keep the species going and are probably damaging our host to the point of impacting it's habitability. For 99% of human history we've had less than a billion people and have managed to evolve, survive little ice ages, plagues, and whatever else we got hit with and you guys act like we're going to suddenly die out if we start dropping below 5 billion for some reason. :unsure:

As far as Japan goes, high debt is a problem many countries are going to have to face, us included, and endless breeding and inflating it away was never a realistic solution. At some point we were going to reach a point where there were too many of us and that time has come. It would be smarter to deal with ourselves rather than trying to pass it on to the next generation to deal with. Even if that means a few headaches, including being more hands on in taking care of your parents instead of just dumping them off on some low wage foreigner to deal with. And if young people in Japan are having trouble finding a job they must not be looking in the right place because there's a labor shortage going on right now.
Just so it's clear, young people ARE NOT having problems finding work. Funny how people who don't live here think they know what's going on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gaius

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,745 Posts
I'm not that worried about declining borth rates. From a trend perspective I think it will flatten out; remember that it was only a generation or two ago that birth control wasn't widely available and women knocked out a lot more kids. Women had few opportunities and wifely "duties" so that meant a lot of kids.

I went to high school with a lot of Mormoms. It was common for those families to have 8-15 kids......I keep in touch on social media with a lot of these same Mormons and most of them have 2-4. So from a trend perspective it looks like a huge decline but when projecting you have to assess whether things will continue as they have been. The birth rate is not going to zero as people's still want children and still have unprotected sex, but frankly 2-4 kids is way more reasonable then 10.

And yes, many of us women would like to do something else with life besides knock out kids. I've successfully raised two and still have a nice career looking at and projecting trends that I really enjoy.

So I would expect birth rates to stabilize over the next generation.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Just so it's clear, young people ARE NOT having problems finding work. Funny how people who don't live here think they know what's going on here.
I have lived in Japan a couple of decades ago and I know how to read articles, including articles written by papers and people in Japan. Are the multitude of articles like this making things up?







If you want to claim they are exaggerated, that's fine, and I'm willing to hear you describe your experiences and explain why you think this is wrong, but it's not that difficult to find concerns being expressed about Japan from inside of Japan, too.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
23,464 Posts
I think it's a sign the species is just adapting slowly to it's circumstance, which is incredibly positive. We can't keep breeding and expanding until there's no room for anyone to lie down.

And as far as @Ikaika ragging on Japan, so what if their economic growth is slowing. They have so much work over there that everyone is valuable again. You can keep working until you're 90 if you want. You can find a place to live that isn't going to take you 30 years to pay off. That's how it's supposed to be. This hyperfocus we have here in the states on economic growth and ROI, to the point people become a burden instead of an asset, is a sickness that needs to be cured.
They had 800,000 births last year.

If you can't discern the problem there, maybe don't take too big a swipe at @Ikaika .

I'm definitely not ragging on Japan but I'm not going to ignore a very serious problem.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Reproducing below replacement level is "adapting" because we are way, way, way above the level we need to safely keep the species going and are probably damaging our host to the point of impacting it's habitability. For 99% of human history we've had less than a billion people and have managed to evolve, survive little ice ages, plagues, and whatever else we got hit with and you guys act like we're going to suddenly die out if we start dropping below 5 billion for some reason. :unsure:
The issue isn't how many people there are on the planet. The issue is whether the population is going up or down. As someone pointed out, the only time human population has gone down was because of unprecedented disasters but it's about to start going down because fertility rates keep falling.

As far as Japan goes, high debt is a problem many countries are going to have to face, us included, and endless breeding and inflating it away was never a realistic solution.
Take a look at this map. What do you notice about Japan?


Japan's debt isn't a bigger problem because it's largely self-financed by the savings of the Japanese people. But that's hardly a healthy situation for a country to be in. It's also potentially going to be a problem if the perpetually unemployed in Japan eat through their parents' savings without replacing them.

At some point we were going to reach a point where there were too many of us and that time has come. It would be smarter to deal with ourselves rather than trying to pass it on to the next generation to deal with.
What makes you think the problem is that there were too many of us?

Even if that means a few headaches, including being more hands on in taking care of your parents instead of just dumping them off on some low wage foreigner to deal with.
And because there are fewer children to distribute the care for parents between and because people have parents later in life, it means that they're being asked to care for elderly parents at the same time they're being told to have and care for their own children (30s-50s) creating the "sandwich" problem:


And if young people in Japan are having trouble finding a job they must not be looking in the right place because there's a labor shortage going on right now.
Look at the details closely...


A total 30.4 percent of businesses also said there was a shortage of nonregular workers. Eateries and the hospitality sector, which traditionally have higher ratios of nonregular workers, were particularly hard hit at 77.3 percent and 62.3 percent, respectively.

For full-time employees, the crunch was most notably felt by the information services sector at 71.3 percent, followed by recruitment at 65.0 percent, and maintenance and security industries at 64.6 percent.
In the United States, those problems are solved by Latin American immigrants and H1-B visa workers, yet Americans still complain about having trouble finding good jobs that Americans want to for the pay being offered. A lot of this is analogous
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
They had 800,000 births last year.
Japan's Prime Minister seems to think that's a problem...


And to put that birth number in perspective, Japan's population shrank by 538,000 in 2022.

 

· Registered
Joined
·
23,464 Posts
Japan's Prime Minister seems to think that's a problem...


And to put that birth number in perspective, Japan's population shrank by 538,000 in 2022.

Then Japan's prime minister has a functioning brain.

That number is extremely alarming.

I blame @Numb26 . He should be knocking up every flight attendant he encounters.😉😎😈
 

· Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I'm not that worried about declining borth rates. From a trend perspective I think it will flatten out; remember that it was only a generation or two ago that birth control wasn't widely available and women knocked out a lot more kids. Women had few opportunities and wifely "duties" so that meant a lot of kids.
Short of uninventing birth control or making it illegal, by what mechanism do you think the trend will flatten out or reverse? In the past, women knocked out a lot more kids because it was a side effect of their not being effective birth control and the role women had in society as you point out. What we are seeing is the effect of removing those restraints and letting women choose how many children they want. And when given the choice, in every industrialized nation regardless of the underlying culture, women have chosen to reproduce below replacement level even when their government offers them benefits to encourage them to have children.

I went to high school with a lot of Mormoms. It was common for those families to have 8-15 kids......I keep in touch on social media with a lot of these same Mormons and most of them have 2-4. So from a trend perspective it looks like a huge decline but when projecting you have to assess whether things will continue as they have been. The birth rate is not going to zero as people's still want children and still have unprotected sex, but frankly 2-4 kids is way more reasonable then 10.
Are you aware that Mormon fertility rates have plummeted in recent years?


And yes, many of us women would like to do something else with life besides knock out kids. I've successfully raised two and still have a nice career looking at and projecting trends that I really enjoy.
And I agree that's a wonderful thing. I've told my daughter that they live in the greatest time in all of human history to be women and I wasn't saying that ironically or with an ulterior motive. I mean it. A big part of my point is that it won't last if women don't choose, on average, to have at least replacement level fertility and there is no industrialized country where that is true except Israel, where a large highly religious group inflates their national fertility rate.

So I would expect birth rates to stabilize over the next generation.
Why do you expect women to start deciding to have more children than you chose to? What do you think is going to make having more children an attractive choice for them?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,721 Posts
Then Japan's prime minister has a functioning brain.

That number is extremely alarming.

I blame @Numb26 . He should be knocking up every flight attendant he encounters.😉😎😈
Five years too late to be able to be able to do that! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ConanHub
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
Top