zlacker

[return to "Japanese population falls in all 47 prefectures for the first time"]
1. bruce5+wj[view] [source] 2023-07-27 04:53:34
>>anigbr+(OP)
>> It’s a natural process for people from areas experiencing population growth to move to other places experiencing decline

This strategy works as long as there are more places (by volume) experiencing growth than decline. Since the trend is slower growth overall, there will be a point where global growth stops, and clearly then the strategy will start to fail.

Frankly, from a planet point of view I'd hope that point comes sooner than later.

This will play out in obvious ways (lifting retirement age etc) but ultimately the quality of life will increase overall until some sort of stable population number emerges.

◧◩
2. NoMore+lu[view] [source] 2023-07-27 06:32:13
>>bruce5+wj
It's not clear to me that fertility will ever rebound. Is there a scenario, where some little Japanese girl who has been the only child from only children for 4 or 5 or 10 generations wakes up one morning and says to herself "I want to grow up to be a mommy and have 2.1 children"?

And, if she doesn't do that, then some other little girl in Japan has to say that same thing but with a number higher than 2.1.

Why would they buck the trends of their own ancestors, their own family?

Surely, it looks similar to the ancient past where some lineage looks as if the same happened. But that was because only one offspring survived to adulthood, and then of his or her children only one survived. But they were having many more with tragic results. Those children, for as long as they lived, existed in a world where people were trying to have many.

This is the part where people reply to me as if I were crazy. But children who grow up seeing those adults around them having few children internalize that as normal, and don't seek to have more than that number.

◧◩◪
3. Kbelic+sF[view] [source] 2023-07-27 08:07:43
>>NoMore+lu
> But children who grow up seeing those adults around them having few children internalize that as normal, and don't seek to have more than that number.

Now apply your logic the other way (parents having many children) and see how meaningless your conclusion is.

◧◩◪◨
4. NoMore+hd1[view] [source] 2023-07-27 12:38:08
>>Kbelic+sF
> Now apply your logic the other way (parents having many children) and see how meaningless your conclusion is.

That the unicorns known as children in large families still see all the other families around them who have just one kid, and internalize that as the norm too, or maybe their own family does influence them slightly and they bump their ceiling up to 2 or 3, and within a few generations that's right back to the mean again?

After age 5, what percentage of waking hours do children spend away from their family anyway? What percentage of adults that they are familiar with (at least to the degree that they know how many children those adults have) are their own parents? Are the people (in the US, they'd be mostly women) that teach them also parents to some high number of children?

Even the Duggars must have grown up internalizing a number far lower than the 20+ their own parents had.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. anigbr+R42[view] [source] 2023-07-27 16:17:15
>>NoMore+hd1
Large families used to be the norm, so by your logic that should have continued indefinitely because it was what everybody was used to at one time.
[go to top]