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.

Comments

Bring on the Bbirths

[thegarbz]

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

So?

[b0s0z0ku]

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.

Bukkake!

[HornWumpus]

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

Great news

[Luke]

Now the rest of the world needs to follow suit.

Even worse for some European countries...

[bogaboga]

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.

A lot of SOs

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:A lot of SOs

[suutar]

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.

Re:A lot of SOs

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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.

Re:A lot of SOs

[sgt scrub]

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.

Pay people more

[rsilvergun]

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.