this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

85 points (93.8% liked)

News

23275 readers

3405 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Japan’s birth rate hits historic low - International Monitor (intlmonitor.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Grumpy 29 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Japan's birth rate isn't even that low anymore comparatively to other nations.

Take a look at South Korea. It's nearly half of Japan. Japan is like 1.3 (OP's article) and SK is at 0.7 (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreas-fertility-rate-dropped-fresh-record-low-2023-2024-02-28/). SK is the absolute dead last in the world. Even China is lower than Japan now at 1.2 even after getting rid of the 1 child policy.

Think the west is any different? Canada also hovers at round 1.3. (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-birth-rate-has-dropped-off-a-cliff-and-its-because-nobody-can-afford-housing - just sourcing 1.3, I don't actually agree with their reasoning) Canada's population only increases because of massive immigration they accept. And immigrants from poorer countries are more likely to have children than existing. So, might even rival SK if we were to not count 1st/2nd gen immigrants, though we don't have such exact data collection, only corollary.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago

I see what you’re trying to say but immigration simply is an important part and especially feasible for huge countries like Canada. Good luck on getting proper immigration programs up and running in SK, Japan or especially China though. Foreign workers are of course at an all time high in Japan, but it‘s not on a western level and the push back is fierce there as well. The stigma there is on a whole different level, making immigration especially uncomfortable.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

And yet, business as usual continues. The older decision makers have to move out the way for things to progress. The same is true in many other countries.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

While lower birth rates may lead to economic issues on a medium term (too many old people VS. too few young people), it's probably one of the most efficient measures to combat climate change. Less people comsuming ressources means less pollution and hopefully also less competition and conflicts for said ressources.

Even though I'll be probably one of the many old people one day that the society may not be able to support adequately, I think that it's positive news for humanity.

From my perspective, the best way to deal with a shrinking population would be a shift away from capitalism in its current form. Infinite growth, bigger, faster etc. is not a realistic and definitely not a sustainable target.

We should focus on the basic needs to make food, housing, care etc. affordable for everyone with as few working hours as possible, so that less people are able to do the job.

[–] Deceptichum 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Eco-fascism ain’t it chief.

The most effective measures, is actually holding the big polluters (a handful of international companies) accountable.

Furthermore capitalism needs to be ditched in any form.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What exactly is facism about naturally (non-enforced) lowering birth rates?

[–] Deceptichum 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Because linking population to environmentalism is like the most basic premise of ecofascism.

Sure you're presenting the 'lite' argument of 'hey if it's just happens on its own, that's good I'm not saying to actually do it' but you're still promoting the underlying belief that population is one of the root causes and planting seeds that lowering population is the "most efficient measures to combat climate change"

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I read through the article and still can't see how my post is related to facism. If we assume a number of X humans with an average environmental footprint of Y that leads to an overall footprint for humanity of X * Y.

If we want to bring that number down, this can by achieved by lowering either of the factors. If you want to cut pollution by let's say 50% with a constant polulation, it goes along with harsher cut backs for the individuals' lifestyle. Looking at the current discourse, such cut backs are highly controverse and measures in that direction are rarely accepted ('they want to take out meat', 'they want to take our cars' etc.).

If the number of humans decreased by 25% due to a naturally lowered birth rate, it means that the individual pollution must be lowered only by 33% instead of 50% to achieve the same result. I would argue that less individual impact will lead to a higher acceptance for a environment-friendly humanity.

If I wrote 'kill the poor' or something like that I'd get your point but I just said that fewer people will have a positive impact on nature. Which is not facism but a simple fact.

By the way. Your liked Wikipedia article also warns about the term 'ecofacism' being misused by the far right to discredit any form of pro-environment statements. So, please think twice before if you really want to use that term and call random people fascists.

Detractors on the political right tend to use the term "ecofascism" as a hyperbolic general pejorative against all environmental activists, including more mainstream groups such as Greenpeace, prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg, and government agencies tasked with protecting environmental resources.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I do not agree that you are being fascist, but I do think you are pointing the finger at individual humans when you should be pointing it at the 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn't even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it's all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?

And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why should we use fossil fuels at all? That's not a population issue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the majority of people would prefer to use green energy but - as said in my previous - I do not think that the same majority is willing to accept significant cut backs on their lifestyle. As long as they can continue to live as they're used to they're all in on the green deal. But when they are asked to use less individual transportation in favor of public transport, lower their heating by a few degrees and wear a sweater instead or buy regional food over stuff that is imported from overseas, then unfortunately a lot of people react in a rejective or even aggressive way. Green politicians in Germany for instance are confronted with a lot of hate for all attempts to initiate some change.

So to me it seems like phasing out fossils in a democratic manner is only possible over a longer period of time, unfortunately probably several decades.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

What if it wasn't up to them because fossil fuels were no longer allowed to be used and those companies were no longer allowed to exploit resources that are destroying the planet?

Also, what if we didn't wait decades for the population to drop so much that it would make a real difference, long after it wouldn't matter?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If we simply just stopped using fossil fuels today without a smooth transition to green energies, all supply chains will shatter immediately, people will freeze to death, you'll have a world-wide famine and neighbors fighting for the last remaining ressources.

Furthermore, the only way to force such an immediate exit from fossils would be to establish a violent dictatorship as there's no democratic majority for it.

As much as I'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, it's pretty obvious that the solution can't be as simple as 'just forbid using fossils'.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, but your 'as soon as possible' is apparently generations away since you think the population needs to drop but fossil fuels should still be used even after that.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago

I never said that I want to just wait. We should leverage all possibilities in parallel to reduce the carbon footprint:

Increase green energy: solar power, wind turbines, tidal power etc.
Reduce energy consumption
Find ways to increase prices of products and services that are bad for the environment (not only CO2, but also methane, PTFE etc.)
Fine companies which violate environmental laws or thresholds with significantly higher amounts than today
Increase tolls in imported products and ban imports of products that do not meet sustainability criteria [...]

All these measures are important steps to take to reduce the average footprint. But still on top of all these things the total number of humans is a signicifant multipler for the total footprint.

A human can only use less ressources only no human will take no ressources.

Once again: I do not promote state-forced birth control, I do not condemn parents, children etc. I'm simply saying that if people voluntarily decide to reproduce at a lower scale, that that has a positive impact on the planet and in the end helps the future generations.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

if we assume

Wrongly, though. The average westerner even does not pollute enough to make a difference, but the rich and the corpos do make all of the difference. Taylor swift pollutes more per year than I ever could even if I tried in my lifetime.

On the other hand the population lowering, anti-civ, anti-industry, an-prim and eco-fash arguments are just eugenics because a lot of disabled, neurodivergent and queer people rely on those things

[+] [email protected] -7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

My Mexican people? Where are they? Do japanese tortillerias not exist? Tortillerias are the key! We Mexican people fuck like bunnies supposedly allegedly. So just bring a few, do some testing and if they like the results let's get some more!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Do japanese tortillerias not exist?

Not really. Also, finding good mexican food in Japan can be quite rough (especially out of the bigger few cities, and many places adjust to Japanese tastes).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Sounds like a job for a special kind of Mexican. All we need is one who can carry a corn seed to fruition. From there, once you got 1 ear of corn and probably beans too, you can mexicanize. That's the reason there are no humans in Mars yet. Why? No tortillas man!

[–] Deceptichum 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

They don’t want Mexicans, or any other peoples, they want to stay in their little racist bubble.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's what I hear. I mean Mexico is no different. It's shocking for me going back to Mexico and all you see is Mexican people. I feel more at home because everyone is relatively the same and looks like me. But I've gotten used to the huge variety of the USA. Man, here, even at my job now, we got people from all places, Mexico obviously, Cuba, India, the US obviously, England, Korea, China, Philippines. We're a small company and look how even if it was just one person from each different place, we are already at a nice 10% multicultural. And it really feels at home. I'm happy listening to all sorts of ways of being.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You need a 4-year degree and a company to sponsor you which, compared to a lot of countries, is a fairly low bar. You can also go the education route and go to language school and/or university here. There are also other ways to come over in addition to that. The above poster seems to just be repeating bullshit or have a chip on their shoulder.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Man, someone should tell them that so they can revoke my status of residency that they keep accidentally renewing every single time for the better part of a decade now. And the people that employee me in Japan. And the people who let me buy a house in Japan.

[–] Deceptichum 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh wow residency! And they graciously allow you to renew it!

Gee golly, what's the foreign born citizenship rate at?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You did not mention citizenship in your post. Japan does not allow dual citizenship (there are some grey zones here, however). The bar to apply for citizenship, however, can actually be lower than the bar for permanent residency in some cases. As for how many people give up their citizenship to naturalize, I can't be bothered to look right now. I personally know one person who did and have heard from others.

[–] Deceptichum 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Being a temp worker who can be kicked out at any time would not imply you're wanted there - so it's kind of a given. Even if we factor residency into it, you're looking at 3% of the population being non-Japanese.

Japan is famously xenophobic, just because you're allowed to work there doesn't change that. You've been there a decade, do the locals consider you Japanese?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

I mean, that's the way immigration works in most countries around the world for average people. I don't have to like it, but I will have PR next year.

Yeah, last I looked between 2.5 and 3 percent are non-Japanese with about .5 of that being non-Asian.

I don't care whether the locals consider me Japanese or not; that's not an important thing for me. My relationship with my neighbors is fine. My wife's family loves me and we get along very well. People in my neighborhood will strike up conversation when they see me out gardening. That's fine for me. I don't aspire to "be Japanese" and I don't know what that even means. I aspire to be part of my community.

Does Japan have its issues? Absolutely. Are there policies that disproportionately affect foreigners? Unfortunately, yes (though things have been slowly improving in my decade here, on the whole). However, none of this is particularly unique to Japan, either.