6 ms·

Out of all of Japan's problems, I think the fundamental root is they need to import a significant amount of energy. They do not have significant coal, oil, ura

Out of all of Japan's problems, I think the fundamental root is they need to import a significant amount of energy. They do not have significant coal, oil, uranium. They have limited access to solar and wind for their population size. To offset all of their energy imports, they need to work very hard to produce a lot of exports. The economic troubles are centered around having to pay a premium to import energy. The birth rate is negatively impacted by the economic situation. Their foreign policy has to keep energy access as a main priority.

kredd 2y ago
> The birth rate is negatively impacted by the economic situation Only to a certain extent. Looking at data of every single rich country, and my own circles, there’s just no appetite for most of people to have 3 children (2.1+ needed for replacement). I weirdly think about this issue way too much, since I’m a part of a problem. All my girl friends, who want children, only want one or two. Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries. I have no idea how to tackle this problem, but would be very interested to read about or somehow even contribute to potential solutions that are beyond “people have to have lots of children for cultural reasons!” argument.
- lawpoaster 2y ago
  [dead]
- calf 2y ago
  It's not a "real" problem unless 7 billion people really need a net positive replacement rate.
  - dr-detroit 2y ago
    [dead]
  - sushibowl 2y ago
    Unfortunately a shrinking population leads to a situation where there are more older people alive than young people, which makes our retirement and health care systems quite unsustainable.
    - spacemadness 2y ago
      I think coupling these ideas together, it’s all rather unsustainable, no? That seems to be the elephant in the room, but everyone is too busy here telling others they’re just “dicking around” not having children. Just kick that can down the road a bit more I guess.
  - kurthr 2y ago
    Apparently, the expected population peak with Africa and India is about 10 billion people. My suspicion is that machines replace more and more economic activity within wealthy contracting nations. Humans already cost several $100k in the US once you look at health education and food subsidies. If a machine can pay for itself +ROI, it probably will be built.
- lainga 2y ago
  Well, one solution could be for Western economies to irreversibly contract under the strain of a high dependency ratio, leading to the cessation of industrial fertiliser production. At that point, I expect a large fraction of the population would return to subsistence farming, and rediscover the traditional incentive that children can work as farm-hands, the more the better (esp. in case some of them die to cholera, typhus, etc.). Nothing more than a modest proposal to spur discussion...!
  - vkou 2y ago
    That is a beautiful story that, like all population pyramid anxieties, completely fails to take into account the colossal productivity gains made in the last century, which allow a much smaller percentage of an active workforce to support a high standard of living.
    - lainga 2y ago
      Assume birthrates fall and remain below replacement globally. Is the percentage zero?
      - vkou 2y ago
        A below-replacement birth rate does not stabilize at zero percentage workforce participation unless the population actually drops to zero. And worrying about 'what will happen if human population actually drops to zero' is like worrying about commuter traffic congestion on Mars. Even in a worst-case projection scenario, like, say, China (Currently at 1.16 births/woman) in 2070: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2070/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2070/ 43.7% of the population is still working age (25-65). And in 2100, it would be 41.2%. As of 2020, it is 58.2%. --- Now, you tell me, in 80 years of technological progress and economic development, do you think China will be able to become 40% more productive? And manage to do ~the same amount of work with 30% fewer workers? (PS. China's per-capita GDP grew 40 times in the past 40 years. It's full of smart people, I think it's going to figure something out.)
        2y ago
- gustavus 2y ago
  > Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? Most of the most fulfilling and meaningful things in life don't always make sense or are reasonable. But they often almost always have to do with serving and sacrificing for others.
  - kredd 2y ago
    They don’t always make sense or are reasonable to you. It’s a perfectly valid take, but a lot of people are genuinely living a fulfilled life without having any children. And again, so many young people right now have none or just one sibling. They can see it’s been okay for themselves so obviously there’s no pressure to have 3. If everyone had just 1 child, we still would have the same problem, except it would be harder to make “emotional fulfillment from having a child” argument.
- swatcoder 2y ago
  > Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries. > solutions that are beyond “people have to have lots of children for cultural reasons!” But you've already just framed it as a cultural dilemma in the preceding paragraph. Are you really meaning, "without challenging my own cultural values, how can I get someone else to provide the time and money I don't feel justified investing myself?"
  - kredd 2y ago
    Hm, you have a point. That being said, I’m not just a tiny minority who don’t have children. Well, also as a man without a partner, it’s not really easy. Super-majority of families have 2 or less kids (about 80% up here in Canada). So it’s not just me who doesn’t want to subscribe to that idea.
- irrational 2y ago
  Tie things like social security, healthcare in old age, etc. to how many kids a person has had. You only get full retirement benefits if you have had three children and raise them to adulthood. There are bonus levels for going above three children. Those who are infertile can adopt to meet their quota.
  - kredd 2y ago
    Only 17% of families up here in Canada have 3+ children. Yeah, that proposal will never fly. I wouldn’t even support it, because it doesn’t really make “having children” a benefit for currently living families.
    - irrational 2y ago
      Oh, I don't think something like this should actually be implemented, but OP was looking for ideas and this was the first one that came to mind.
- dauertewigkeit 2y ago
  > 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss No there isn't. People want to dick around without responsibility. That's fine. But most people don't really accomplish anything that would come close in worth to raising a child in those six years, in no way shape or form. Let's not frame it in economic terms. People just want to dick around and that's fine.
  - kredd 2y ago
    Fair. In my head I consider “dicking around” a part of opportunity loss. Basically sacrificing whatever your definition of fun is with having children and the responsibilities that come with it.
    - gamepsys 2y ago
      Earlier you said "There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries." I think the lost opportunity value of dicking around would be about equal between wealthy countries and developing countries. You can go to the beach/lake/woods, drink all night, play video games, and binge TV most places in the world. Maybe the wealthy countries would have nicer TVs and more expensive intoxicants, but it's basically the same thing everywhere.
      - kredd 2y ago
        You have more money to dick around with. More money means different types of opportunities, making it less boring. You can keep occupying yourselves with things other than having children. There’s still some sense of “I should have children to survive in my later years” in developing countries. Not really needed for richer ones where things have established and you can get support in times of needs.
  - a_shane 2y ago
    As a childless woman in her mid-30's, I take issue with this comment. I run a successful business that supports the livelihoods of a dozen people, I volunteer and am a an active community advocate, and I teach, among other things. My decision to not have children is so I can focus my attention on other economic contributors and keeping my team employed. I'd hardly call that "dicking around without responsibility."
- zo1 2y ago
  We either have to embrace the new world and make it work for our species in terms of population, or we have to go back to the old ways on some level (after admitting they were that way for a reason). Here are some ideas, some wild, some controversial, some super obvious that we can try. But we never will because the backlash from the usual suspects will always be too great. 1. Pay people to have babies. Seriously, tax breaks and literally free money. E.g. for every baby a citizen makes and cares for, we'll give them enough to times their monthly salary by 1.06. You could do this tomorrow, and people would have babies. That relieves the burden placed on people for the wonderful gift they brought into the world. 2. Make daycare a universal human right. Quality care and free for all your citizens, no questions asked. 3. Give mothers 1/2/3/4/5 years worth of paid maternity leave. No, don't get the companies to pay it. Should be a government salary that matches the employer's salary with yearly growth. That way pregnant women aren't a drain on a company, but rather the burden we happily accept as a society. 4. Pay people to get married and stay married if they have kids. Maybe even make divorce a hard thing to motivate for and only for the right reasons such as abuse. We don't want divorces breaking up family homes and our baby-making factories prematurely. Some potentially wacky ones: 5. Ban dating apps and outlaw hookup culture. We want genuine relationships and marriages to form, as they're the backbone of a culture that values generational properties such as legacy and community. 6. Make promiscuity illegal. Track who hooks up with who and you can't do more than X per year. Seriously, sex needs to be hard to attain. Side note, ban sex work and porn. 7. Subsidized baby-assistance jobs. Pay to get a nanny or au-pair or teacher in every home. Bonus points you help with the unemployment question. 8. Baby making factories or make it a profession for women to do - however workable until we figure out artificial wombs. There are so many people out there that just will never be able to get the chance to be parents even though they'd make wonderful and loving parents, why not help them by letting them adopt. And yes I know there are many ways the above could go bad, or are riddled with "a ha gotcha" holes, but at least we'd be doing something as a society. Right now, our governments are doing nothing and just complaining "oh shame look at our poor birth rates, we wonder why. Let's just conveniently import more of them from the poorest and most incompatible countries, that outta fix it and not cause problems down the line.". We could fund most of the above by just getting rid of all the silly government expenditures such as military and who knows what other fat we have lurking in the government.
ttepasse 2y ago
> They have limited access to solar and wind for their population size. I would have assume an island nation on their latitudes would profit from solar and even more from offshore wind. Is there a reason why it doesn't seem so?

kredd 2y ago

> The birth rate is negatively impacted by the economic situation Only to a certain extent. Looking at data of every single rich country, and my own circles, there’s just no appetite for most of people to have 3 children (2.1+ needed for replacement). I weirdly think about this issue way too much, since I’m a part of a problem. All my girl friends, who want children, only want one or two. Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries. I have no idea how to tackle this problem, but would be very interested to read about or somehow even contribute to potential solutions that are beyond “people have to have lots of children for cultural reasons!” argument.

lawpoaster 2y ago
[dead]
calf 2y ago
It's not a "real" problem unless 7 billion people really need a net positive replacement rate.
- dr-detroit 2y ago
  [dead]
- sushibowl 2y ago
  Unfortunately a shrinking population leads to a situation where there are more older people alive than young people, which makes our retirement and health care systems quite unsustainable.
  - spacemadness 2y ago
    I think coupling these ideas together, it’s all rather unsustainable, no? That seems to be the elephant in the room, but everyone is too busy here telling others they’re just “dicking around” not having children. Just kick that can down the road a bit more I guess.
- kurthr 2y ago
  Apparently, the expected population peak with Africa and India is about 10 billion people. My suspicion is that machines replace more and more economic activity within wealthy contracting nations. Humans already cost several $100k in the US once you look at health education and food subsidies. If a machine can pay for itself +ROI, it probably will be built.
lainga 2y ago
Well, one solution could be for Western economies to irreversibly contract under the strain of a high dependency ratio, leading to the cessation of industrial fertiliser production. At that point, I expect a large fraction of the population would return to subsistence farming, and rediscover the traditional incentive that children can work as farm-hands, the more the better (esp. in case some of them die to cholera, typhus, etc.). Nothing more than a modest proposal to spur discussion...!
- vkou 2y ago
  That is a beautiful story that, like all population pyramid anxieties, completely fails to take into account the colossal productivity gains made in the last century, which allow a much smaller percentage of an active workforce to support a high standard of living.
  - lainga 2y ago
    Assume birthrates fall and remain below replacement globally. Is the percentage zero?
    - vkou 2y ago
      A below-replacement birth rate does not stabilize at zero percentage workforce participation unless the population actually drops to zero. And worrying about 'what will happen if human population actually drops to zero' is like worrying about commuter traffic congestion on Mars. Even in a worst-case projection scenario, like, say, China (Currently at 1.16 births/woman) in 2070: https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2070/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2070/ 43.7% of the population is still working age (25-65). And in 2100, it would be 41.2%. As of 2020, it is 58.2%. --- Now, you tell me, in 80 years of technological progress and economic development, do you think China will be able to become 40% more productive? And manage to do ~the same amount of work with 30% fewer workers? (PS. China's per-capita GDP grew 40 times in the past 40 years. It's full of smart people, I think it's going to figure something out.)
      - 2y ago
gustavus 2y ago
> Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? Most of the most fulfilling and meaningful things in life don't always make sense or are reasonable. But they often almost always have to do with serving and sacrificing for others.
- kredd 2y ago
  They don’t always make sense or are reasonable to you. It’s a perfectly valid take, but a lot of people are genuinely living a fulfilled life without having any children. And again, so many young people right now have none or just one sibling. They can see it’s been okay for themselves so obviously there’s no pressure to have 3. If everyone had just 1 child, we still would have the same problem, except it would be harder to make “emotional fulfillment from having a child” argument.
swatcoder 2y ago
> Why would anyone sacrifice, at the very bare minimum, 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries. > solutions that are beyond “people have to have lots of children for cultural reasons!” But you've already just framed it as a cultural dilemma in the preceding paragraph. Are you really meaning, "without challenging my own cultural values, how can I get someone else to provide the time and money I don't feel justified investing myself?"
- kredd 2y ago
  Hm, you have a point. That being said, I’m not just a tiny minority who don’t have children. Well, also as a man without a partner, it’s not really easy. Super-majority of families have 2 or less kids (about 80% up here in Canada). So it’s not just me who doesn’t want to subscribe to that idea.
irrational 2y ago
Tie things like social security, healthcare in old age, etc. to how many kids a person has had. You only get full retirement benefits if you have had three children and raise them to adulthood. There are bonus levels for going above three children. Those who are infertile can adopt to meet their quota.
- kredd 2y ago
  Only 17% of families up here in Canada have 3+ children. Yeah, that proposal will never fly. I wouldn’t even support it, because it doesn’t really make “having children” a benefit for currently living families.
  - irrational 2y ago
    Oh, I don't think something like this should actually be implemented, but OP was looking for ideas and this was the first one that came to mind.
dauertewigkeit 2y ago
> 6 years of their youthful years for 3 children? There’s just too much opportunity loss No there isn't. People want to dick around without responsibility. That's fine. But most people don't really accomplish anything that would come close in worth to raising a child in those six years, in no way shape or form. Let's not frame it in economic terms. People just want to dick around and that's fine.
- kredd 2y ago
  Fair. In my head I consider “dicking around” a part of opportunity loss. Basically sacrificing whatever your definition of fun is with having children and the responsibilities that come with it.
  - gamepsys 2y ago
    Earlier you said "There’s just too much opportunity loss compared to lower income / less rich countries." I think the lost opportunity value of dicking around would be about equal between wealthy countries and developing countries. You can go to the beach/lake/woods, drink all night, play video games, and binge TV most places in the world. Maybe the wealthy countries would have nicer TVs and more expensive intoxicants, but it's basically the same thing everywhere.
    - kredd 2y ago
      You have more money to dick around with. More money means different types of opportunities, making it less boring. You can keep occupying yourselves with things other than having children. There’s still some sense of “I should have children to survive in my later years” in developing countries. Not really needed for richer ones where things have established and you can get support in times of needs.
- a_shane 2y ago
  As a childless woman in her mid-30's, I take issue with this comment. I run a successful business that supports the livelihoods of a dozen people, I volunteer and am a an active community advocate, and I teach, among other things. My decision to not have children is so I can focus my attention on other economic contributors and keeping my team employed. I'd hardly call that "dicking around without responsibility."
zo1 2y ago
We either have to embrace the new world and make it work for our species in terms of population, or we have to go back to the old ways on some level (after admitting they were that way for a reason). Here are some ideas, some wild, some controversial, some super obvious that we can try. But we never will because the backlash from the usual suspects will always be too great. 1. Pay people to have babies. Seriously, tax breaks and literally free money. E.g. for every baby a citizen makes and cares for, we'll give them enough to times their monthly salary by 1.06. You could do this tomorrow, and people would have babies. That relieves the burden placed on people for the wonderful gift they brought into the world. 2. Make daycare a universal human right. Quality care and free for all your citizens, no questions asked. 3. Give mothers 1/2/3/4/5 years worth of paid maternity leave. No, don't get the companies to pay it. Should be a government salary that matches the employer's salary with yearly growth. That way pregnant women aren't a drain on a company, but rather the burden we happily accept as a society. 4. Pay people to get married and stay married if they have kids. Maybe even make divorce a hard thing to motivate for and only for the right reasons such as abuse. We don't want divorces breaking up family homes and our baby-making factories prematurely. Some potentially wacky ones: 5. Ban dating apps and outlaw hookup culture. We want genuine relationships and marriages to form, as they're the backbone of a culture that values generational properties such as legacy and community. 6. Make promiscuity illegal. Track who hooks up with who and you can't do more than X per year. Seriously, sex needs to be hard to attain. Side note, ban sex work and porn. 7. Subsidized baby-assistance jobs. Pay to get a nanny or au-pair or teacher in every home. Bonus points you help with the unemployment question. 8. Baby making factories or make it a profession for women to do - however workable until we figure out artificial wombs. There are so many people out there that just will never be able to get the chance to be parents even though they'd make wonderful and loving parents, why not help them by letting them adopt. And yes I know there are many ways the above could go bad, or are riddled with "a ha gotcha" holes, but at least we'd be doing something as a society. Right now, our governments are doing nothing and just complaining "oh shame look at our poor birth rates, we wonder why. Let's just conveniently import more of them from the poorest and most incompatible countries, that outta fix it and not cause problems down the line.". We could fund most of the above by just getting rid of all the silly government expenditures such as military and who knows what other fat we have lurking in the government.

ttepasse 2y ago

> They have limited access to solar and wind for their population size. I would have assume an island nation on their latitudes would profit from solar and even more from offshore wind. Is there a reason why it doesn't seem so?