Slashdot Mirror


Number of Births in Japan To Hit Record Low in 2017 (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The number of births in Japan this year has fallen to is lowest since records began more than a century ago with about 941,000 new babies, the health ministry said on Friday, proof if any were needed that it faces an ageing and shrinking population. The number of births will be about 4 percent lower than last year and the lowest since the government started compiling data in 1899, the ministry said.

14 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Bring on the Bbirths by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Proof that slashdot editors are not robots, otherwise they wouldn't make such silly mistakes.

  2. So? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is overpopulation a laudable thing? The Japanese home islands are already highly populated -- no need to increase the population. Stabilizing at early-1900s levels would be much more sustainable.

  3. Bukkake! by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Stop it, your kids are confused. Never going to knock up their GFs/wives that way.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Great news by Luke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now the rest of the world needs to follow suit.

  5. Even worse for some European countries... by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For these countries, they will have to rely on immigration which some of them are already doing.

    I guess that in about 50 years, these countries' demographic makeup in terms of race will be very different.

  6. A lot of SOs by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest reasons why this is a real issue are:

    1) This rate is not stabilizing anything - it's well below replacement rate, which means population is shrinking.

    2) Short term a shrinking population means fewer workers to pay into government funds to help the elderly,

    3) Fewer elderly with children mean more reliance on the state in old age.

    4) Fewer people mean shops have fewer customers, demand for housing drops, construction starts waning, economy goes down.

    5) Long term, what happens when a country cannot sustain a population? Eventually it becomes a totally different nation as others will eventually take it over. I guess if you don't care about the preservation of Japanese culture that's not a problem.

    If they were going to a sustainable level that would be one thing, but like I said what is happening is not sustainable without some really bad consequences.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A lot of SOs by suutar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not enough to stabilize at current levels, but it can still stabilize at a lower number, once the elderly have passed on. The time between now and then will still be unpleasant, for all the reasons you mention, but it's not necessarily inevitable doom.

    2. Re:A lot of SOs by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they were going to a sustainable level that would be one thing, but like I said what is happening is not sustainable without some really bad consequences.

      Your post is the quintessence of modern totally broken global economy: it's sustainable only if population keeps growing indefinitely. This is not what we should strive for. This is not what this planet can provide for us. This is not what it can provide even for the 7 billion of people who already inhabit it. We've already past the point of sustainability even if the population growth stops completely - forests keep shrinking, many ecosystems are dying, we trim the pool of available fruits and vegetables which could lead to massive food crises (universally loved bananas are on the verge of extinction), we observe catastrophic levels of global warming, there's massive population migrations and wars related to it.

      The Earth doesn't need 7 billion people. It'd be better off with less than 5 if we are to preserve this planet and our species.

      We must readjust and though the cost will be enormous, the benefits will be indisputable.

    3. Re:A lot of SOs by sgt+scrub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) This rate is not stabilizing anything - it's well below replacement rate, which means population is shrinking.

      Not all jobs need to be replaced. If nobody makes trash, nobody is needed to take out the trash.

      2) Short term a shrinking population means fewer workers to pay into government funds to help the elderly

      The aging people payed government funds per capita at expected higher numbers. There is now fewer people. If the government doesn't have the money to support the fewer people then they are screwing the people.

      3) Fewer elderly with children mean more reliance on the state in old age.

      Fewer means less. Fewer people need less assistance.

      4) Fewer people mean shops have fewer customers, demand for housing drops, construction starts waning, economy goes down.

      Economy is related to population, "per capita". You can't have a down economy if it is reduced at the rate of population decline.

      5) Long term, what happens when a country cannot sustain a population? Eventually it becomes a totally different nation as others will eventually take it over. I guess if you don't care about the preservation of Japanese culture that's not a problem.

      Their population isn't shrinking towards extinction.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  7. sad by supernova87a · · Score: 2

    Sigh, you can't help but feel (a little) sorry for the Japanese people. They have such amazing and interesting qualities, among them courtesy, care/attention to detail, social cohesion, respect for government/authority, reverence of technical ability.

    On the other hand, it produces really weird side effects like social repression, workplace stress, conformity in a bad way, racism / xenophobia, and relevant to this point... high cost of living.

    If they don't start letting immigrants help them, and in a big way, this amazing culture will really die out. I mean, their countryside is basically emptying out.

  8. Pay people more by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and work them less. This isn't because they don't want kids. Multiple studies and surveys have shown that. They can't afford to have kids and only work 12/day, 6 days/week. Since they don't have the Christian hang ups about using birth control that Americans have the birth rate keeps going down. Meanwhile their prime minister is coming up with all sorts of crazy schemes to try and get people to keep up their crazy pace of work and still squeeze out 3-4 kids.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Re:So answer me this. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    You seem to prefer a more! more! more! people attitude. Why?

    More people means more new ideas, and more progress.

    Why do you want to continually increase people on this planet?

    We don't. But the world would benefit from more educated and productive people like the Japanese. The country with the highest population growth is Niger, which is a poor war-torn drought-ridden country suffering from overgrazing, desertification and unable to even feed themselves. Many of the women in Niger would prefer smaller families but have no access to contraceptives, and have cultural pressures for large families.

    We would be much better off if birthrates in both Japan and Niger were stabilized at or near ZPG.

    What is with this need for us to continually breed like a virus?

    You might want to learn a bit more about how viruses "breed".

  10. Re:So answer me this. by Teckla · · Score: 2

    More people means more new ideas, and more progress.

    This is a pile of hogwash. All cultures are not created equal. Some cultures can become worse through immigration because those immigrants often bring bad cultures with them. Similarly, some cultures improve through immigration when the immigrants bring a better culture with them.

    The idea that lots of immigration and diversity lead to the best ideas bubbling to the top is just wishful thinking.

    I'm not anti-immigration, but I think the citizens of any country would be wise to have careful selection criteria for immigrants.

    Also, higher population always means more pollution. This is also a good thing for countries to keep in mind.

  11. Re: Exactly. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    68 is an extremely high retirement age

    Indeed it is, but if it is any lower the math doesn't work. The longer Japan waits, the worse it will be. My prediction is that it will get a lot worse, since Japan has a very strong cultural preference for inaction, even when delay is obviously foolish.

    I feel like the world economy is slowly moving toward "you work until you drop dead". I think that's unfortunate.

    Two solutions:
    1. Have more babies.
    2. Build more robots.