
As Japan's population shrinks, bears and boars roam among schools and shrines - grej
http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-japan-population-snap-story.html
======
sgt101
Perhaps this is what will happen across the world in 200 years time? People in
advanced economies seem less keen to have lots of children, perhaps vast
tracts of the earth will be abandoned to wildlife?

I actually hope so, I wonder if culture will change and adapt and eventually
find a new equilibrium, but at a much lower population. Perhaps people will
enjoy reliving the experiences of people from "the crush". Perhaps they will
struggle to understand the science of the artifacts that surround them and
progress will effectively end - after all 10 billion people can go a lot
faster than 100 million. There are no facts about the future.

~~~
Snargorf
Not in 200 years.

What we're seeing now is a _partial_ die-off.

Eventually, evolution will re-assert itself. The sub-populations who, for
whatever reason, continue to grow in population will come to dominate the
numbers, after the non-breeding groups die off.

E.g. in America, fertility is passing below replacement rates - on average.
But the Amish population still doubles every 20 years. In 200 years, there
will be hundreds of millions of Amish.

We could be looking at a world of Amish, Quiverfulls, poor tribalistic
Africans, religious Muslims, and orthodox Jews. There will be very few left-
liberals, the childfree movement will be gone (like the Shakers already are).
Gays and other queer people may breed out of the gene pool if their modern
freedom reduces the fertility of their genes.

Modernity may very well be self-defeating, because the future belongs to those
who show up.

~~~
Natales
My biggest concern is the direct correlation to the reproductive rates and
lower education in virtually every culture. More than specific concerns about
particular religions or ethnic origins, I fear for a world where the
uneducated rules.

~~~
toasterlovin
Then you should have lots of kids! And encourage your intelligent friends to
do the same.

~~~
ginko
Well, it's not as if you can just choose to have kids.

~~~
toasterlovin
True in the technical sense that a person cannot just unilaterally decide to
have children _RIGHT NOW_. But most people, over the course of their life,
have the opportunity to have children. In the developed world, a huge portion
of these people decide to have 0 or 1 child.

------
abpavel
I think these two paragraphs nicely frame theme of the problem:
<i>Politicians, he added, have propagated the myth that foreigners commit
crimes at a higher rate than Japanese and have suggested that more immigrants
could make the country vulnerable to terrorism. Labor unions have also put up
a fight.

“Look at nurses, they believe their income will be cut if we let in Filipinos
and Indonesians,” said Katsuyuki Yakushiji, a sociologist at Toyo University
in Tokyo. “They also say that these people can’t speak Japanese well and that
could be risky. Yet, at the same time, they complain about severe overwork and
say we need to add nurses.”</i>

On one hand a defiance, even in the face of Armageddon. On the other it
reflects worldwide general negativity, in this case xenophobia under the guise
of overzealous job protection, as noone is worried that there will be more
nurses per se, just as long as they are not... the "other kind"

~~~
toomuchtodo
Wanting your culture to not drift is expected. It's built into humans to
prefer people like ourselves.

It's also expected that people don't want their wages depressed by imported
labor.

A democratic government enforcing the above ideals (if supported by a majority
of citizens) is expected. That's why Japan is exploring automation instead of
immigration for its workforce.

EDIT: @krapp (HN is throttling my posting ability)

Japan is overhauling immigration, but only as a last resort:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-07/immigrati...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-07/immigration-
is-a-tough-one-for-japan-to-swallow)

~~~
orthoganol
> Wanting your culture to not drift is expected. It's built into humans to
> prefer people like ourselves.

Or look at America, the world's biggest melting pot. Just because Japan has a
preference for their own ethnicity (like most other countries around the
world, India, China, most of Europe, etc.) doesn't mean they aren't wrong and
IMO not on the wrong side of history. People I know here in the US have no
issue having real friends, people they hang out with and regard as equals, who
are ethnically Asian, Indian, African. In other countries, this simply
wouldn't happen.

~~~
kelukelugames
America is the world's biggest melting pot relatively speaking. Most
American's social circles look like themselves. Also I suspect there is a gap
between the number of people who have no issue with having a diverse group of
friends and those who actually do.

 _Drawing on techniques from social network analysis, PRRI’s 2013 American
Values Survey asked respondents to identify as many as seven people with whom
they had discussed important matters in the six months prior to the survey.
The results reveal just how segregated white social circles are.

Overall, the social networks of whites are a remarkable 91 percent white.
White American social networks are only one percent black, one percent
Hispanic, one percent Asian or Pacific Islander, one percent mixed race, and
one percent other race. In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites
have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level
of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than
among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent)._

Links:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self-
seg...](http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/self-segregation-
why-its-hard-for-whites-to-understand-ferguson/378928/)

[http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/08/cr...](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/08/cropped/79324c442.jpg)

[http://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-
survey/](http://www.prri.org/research/2013-american-values-survey/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Isn't that exactly what you'd expect statistically? That the majority members
would mostly have circles representing the majority? In fact, its more telling
that minorities have social circles that _don 't_ include many of the
majority. Because that is a whole lot more self-selected - it can't be random.
That black Americans' social circles have 65-percent minority membership is
several standard deviations outside what could be normal.

~~~
thaumasiotes
The 2010 census shows the US as 64% non-Hispanic white. It's just as
impossible for their social groups to be 91% white by random chance as it is
for blacks' social groups to be 65% black.

You can explain the whites who have no connection to any nonwhite by saying
that nonwhites tend to be concentrated in particular areas such as Louisiana
or New York City, but that makes the nonwhites look significantly _more_
integrated compared to the whites.

------
a3n
While reading this article, it occurred to me that Japan is at worst slowly
committing suicide, and at best "failing to thrive."

Why?

And what happens when the majority of the country all but de-populates? Will
China invade? Will the US be asked to open military bases?

~~~
justicezyx
Where is the 'will China invade' come from?

Historically it always has been reverse.

~~~
a3n
A depopulated Japan could easily be an undefended Japan. China is right now
working to expand its sphere of territory and influence. They make islands in
the ocean where none were before.

This scenario is possible if two things happen: weak Japanese self-defense
from depopulation, and a successful closing of US bases by either Japanese
citizens who resent their presence, or US isolationism.

~~~
protomyth
Its interesting that the current PM wants to revise their constitution to
remove limits on Japan’s military. [http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-
voters-to-render-a-verd...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/japanese-voters-to-
render-a-verdict-on-abenomics-national-security-policy-1468111220)

------
ra1n85
Pictures of bears or boars roaming schools or shrines would have been a great
addition to this article.

------
EGreg
Good! Now if only the most populous countries would do the same then everyone
would be richer. Thanks to automation, we no longer need the next generation
to be larger than the last. Most existential challenges for humanity in the
21st century stem from the population explosion of the last 150 years.

------
discardorama
I keep reading about the decline of the Japanese population, and I wonder:
what are the major causes of people not producing enough kids? Is it that
there's not enough bonking going on? Stress from work? Long hours at the
office? I mean, sex is one of the most fun activities nature has given us, for
free. Why aren't enough Japanese having sex? Is it something in the culture?
The comics, maybe?

This is a serious question. I often wonder why something that worked for
millions of years, is suddenly not working.

~~~
themaninthedark
Many reasons. Women don't want to marry because they don't want to stay at
home and raise kids and take care of in-laws. Men don't want to marry because
they don't want to have to support a family and give up control of the finance
to the women. Work consists of 8 hour shifts and mandatory overtime up to 3
hour or more. Which means the culture is not spontaneous and everything gets
planned well in advance. Guys are friends with only guys, girls only
girls(mostly) so not much chance to meet and spend time with the other sex.
Starting salary is low and advances with age. In your 20s you make about 20k a
year in your 30s 30k.

~~~
themaninthedark
Sorry for format, on phone at work and new to the site. I will try and post
something better when I can get on my computer.

------
pwython
Really interesting graph comparing children per woman and life expectancy over
the past ~200 years:
[http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t...](http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=10;ti=1800$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0TAlJeCEzcGQ;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;iid=thlR4hyNMEnaVyV_uxRzjfQ;by=grp$map_x;scale=lin;dataMin=12;dataMax=83$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=0.855;dataMax=8.7$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=)

------
ryankupyn
It'll be interesting to see if this leads to a debt crisis in the future, as
Japan's population shrinks and the per-capita debt burden increases. It'd be
very tricky to deal with as social spending for the elderly increases at the
same time.

------
Animats
This is why the religious groups that keep women in their place at home,
breeding, will rule the world.

~~~
cjslep
There are quite a few things wrong with this post.

Firstly, what is the "This" in "This is why"? "Non-religious groups of people
will just die off"? "Religious zealots are taking over Japan as non-religious
inhabitants dwindle"? None of this is sane.

Secondly, modern religious interpretations do not dictate that women must stay
at home and pump out babies. That bigoted stereotype is rooted in a warped
view of some religions' beliefs about the role of sex in society. The
stereotype is also rooted in extremist interpretations of some religions, but
those extremist interpretations are not representative of what is going on in
Japan[0]. Perpetuating this bigoted stereotype isn't helping any argument.

Thirdly, just because people are born into a highly devout religious family
does not mean they stay religious. I submit myself as an example of a person
born into a religious family but turned agnostic.

[0]Edit: It is also not fair to take the extremist minority interpretation
from anywhere and apply it broadly everywhere, not just Japan. Hopefully it is
self-evident why without me having to bring up other ugly examples.

~~~
mafribe

       modern religious interpretations 
       do not dictate that
    

I'm not sure you understand what Animats means.

He's not making a normative statement that religions _should_ place women in
this/that/the other role. He's making a factual statement: those social groups
that do demand that women's role is primarily in reproduction _will_ outbreed
everybody. This is an undeniable and empirically observable fact, whether you
turned agnostic or not.

It's playing out already in the kindergardens and primary schools in my
hometown already: most children are Muslims, with burka wearing mothers. Yet
less than 1/3, probably less than 1/4 of the population is Muslim, the rest is
white, highly educated yuppies, GLBTQ whatever ... who all have 0 children.

~~~
cjslep
> He's making a factual statement: those social groups that do demand that
> women's role is primarily in reproduction will outbreed everybody.

That's not even close to what I read when I saw:

> will rule the world

That seems extremely normative to me.

In fact, I honestly fail to see any facts presented in the _one sentence_ I
responded to.

There are a lot of debatable nuanced points between the factual statement of
having more kids and the conclusion of ruling the world. There are no
connecting-the-dots arguments in the post I responded to. If Animats wanted to
mean the fact you bring up, she/he would have just said the fact. But that is
not what happened. Taking the simplest interpretation of Animats's one
entirely-normative sentence, it is an extreme opinion that expresses a large
contempt/disdain for organized religion.

I really hope you examine your post, and evaluate how and why you took
Animats' opinion and managed to somehow extract a fact from it. And that's
whether I turned agnostic or not.

