Japan is in a strange zone. Their economy is mature and developed like major Western powers, so some people project onto them Western values. They have their own values, different than ours, they don't impose them on us, nor seek to impose them on us, yet, many a westerner critiques Japan through western values and philosophy (as they do China).
I think that's a big issue in (mis)understanding Japan.
That isn't entirely accurate. Their published statistics on crime are very low.
[1]http://www.newsweek.com/yakuza-gang-members-japan-arrests-57...
e: Also, for reference, the American mafia supposedly has about 3k members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Mafia
There's always stories but personally I've found that there's a fetish for "actually Japan is secretly falling apart" that never really aligns with reality, or is usually more indicative of the person's lack of experience with other countries.
Having said that, I don’t gamble or visit host clubs and avoid making enemies in general.
I often see your response about manipulation of statistics, but it is simply indisputable that crime is negligible in Japan compared to Anywhere, USA.
It's also changing. I only really started regularly seeing random (not artistic) graffiti around 2010... and that's after visiting for almost 20 years. Certainly, I've known about poverty in Japan (mostly seen in Tokyo) since the late 90s and 2000s bust. The late 80s boom/bust priced a lot of people out of housing and they've been slowly cut out of the workforce as well.
The kids really started changing in the 90s and by the 2000s a lot of the creatives were wearing t-shirts and tennies to work, which was a huge change (although some traditional places still wear uniforms today). They've (as a cohort) changed some of the norms of work and life (not getting married or having kids!), but have also hidden themselves in weird little sub-cultures (anime, videogames, shopping, karoshi).
I should know what's going on in Japanese social media, but I really don't. Anyone have comments on that? It can't be as weird and twisted as Korea.
The response to that disaster was very poor and unprepared.
Part of the reason that people stay in subcultures much longer is the payoff to adapting a straitlaced image and seeking work as a salaryman just isn't there anymore. Also a major reason people aren't starting families.
Facebook is popular in some circles, but not nearly as active as in the US. It's almost closer to LinkedIn, like your professional face (even if not strictly about business like LinkedIn).
People often have multiple Twitter accounts for different purposes and it's incredibly popular. Maybe the only country where Twitter's still growing?
Instagram use is basically the same as the US I'd say. It's helped erode the privacy obsession, with more people posting selfies and such.
And LINE is the juggernaut being the primary social graph of Japan. It's the default for one-to-one and group chats, and some people use the other features like the wall-like feature, shared albums, etc.
At the beginning it was a bit inconvenient for me because I use it mainly to communicate with family and friends, but I solved this problem by opening a secondary account where I add all the people that I don't want to have access to my private life.
Outside of that WeChat is absolutely critical in China and everyone who needs to work with China. However, not having a bank account in China makes using many of the Wechat capabilities impossible.
I don't claim to understand and maybe it's just some of the high-pressure "elite" schools, but the commentary didn't make it seem rare. Personally, I think the psychological pressure of a very military mindset (spying is a normal part of both social and business experience) and having the threat of the North just beyond the DMZ outside of Seoul is part of it... along with the pressure parents put on their kids to succeed. Watch some Korean films and you will see in it a self image that to this American feels darker and more disturbing than similarly bizarre things that happen in Japan (think more on the GangLife/Neo-Nazi side of the US, but better educated).
Pretty much everything I hear about Japan - whether it be news, or talking to Japanese friends - makes it seem like the country isn't doing so hot as far as the top 10 or 15 countries in the world go. Authoritarian government with poor freedom of press, social and mental health issues out the wazoo, aging population combined with xenophobia/refusal to open up or otherwise encourage mass immigration, poor gender equality, salaryman issues, etc.
It feels like they peaked in the early to mid 90s and have just sorta been stumbling around since then.
The point is, we will need to figure out how to keep society going (economically, or specifically from a population welfare point of view) despite declining populations.
There is no reason a Japan of 70 million should not be a viable society. It's still one of the densest countries on earth, given their usable land --it's mostly unusable, non arable mountainous.
Nobody has that figured out. For now the answer for developed countries involves allowing in immigrants to make up for the deaths.
No - this is false.
There's nothing to 'figure out'.
We simply don't need as many people.
We'll have to deal with it a some point in the future, but there is no imperative for America to keep adding more people willy nilly.
The 'we must add bodies' ideal is just an extension of national corporatism.
Yes, but it does not have to be this way.
It's just the way it's designed for now.
I suggest it's probably not a huge factor for most people.
But there's a huge amount of information embedded into culture - ideas, mannerisms, forms of education, language, social strata - it goes far, far beyond 'language and cuisine'.
Large scale immigration wipes that out and does not replace it with a new culture, rather, a 'globalized' set of values - and a Starbucks on every corner.
So in the interests of having actual 'diversity' on planet earth, because as of today we are witnessing an 'extinction event' of culture, we might want to consider the impact of some of our policies.
Immigrants (and FYI I've been an immigrant at stages of my own life) are mostly just regular people, and so we don't want to play into the hands of xenophobes or 'racial purists' or whatever, but at the same time, we have to recognize the imperative of culture itself. Is all.
To be sure, a large group of immigrants can change the host culture (for instance, in American English we have any number of Yiddish-derived words that, in my experience, are not really commonly understood by English people), but I think the idea that the result has to be a homogenized, corporate, ersatz culture is wrong. Japan itself, as it exists today, is clearly the result of tremendous, unmistakable foreign influence -- most notably, but hardly exclusively, Tang Dynasty China and post-war America.
Ultimately, I guess you could say that as a person married to a foreign woman of a different ethnicity I have some personal investment in the opposite ideal.
FYI I live in an area where I'm a tiny ethnic minority English speaker among a sea of people who are of a different culture, including my GF and most of my friends. I've also lived around the world as an ex-pat/immigrant/minority.
I think global mass immigration will lead to a single (or maybe a small group of), globalized, commercial civilization(s) without culture, and we will lose most of what makes us great.
It's happening right now - and quickly.
We will eventually defeat climate change - but once we lose culture, it will never come back.
So that's a real thing.
There's no reason that a nation must continue to have 'more people' so I don't see why people must continue with the arbitrary demands of 'more people'.
The motivation for 'mass immigration' is mostly commercial and partly social - there are globalist forces who wish to move masses of poor people to rich countries.
This is not a crazy Breitbart conspiracy, here it is on the UN's web site:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migr...
The title alone is Orwellian.
And just as there are xenophobes/bigots out there, there many who relish the thought of wiping out successful cultures for various reasons.
When we think about 'retirement' or even 'retiring early' often that's a little bit aspirational ... where would we want to live, if we had the choice? Well - people don't chose to live in the 'suburbs' near an 'IKEA' and a 'McDonald's' and a 'highway'. Generally, I think most people, from most backgrounds, chose to live in a place that has some kind of cultural context - either their own, or another, but certainly not the globalized Starbucks Suburbs.
Our 'global policies' right now are focused very much on the material, not the things that ultimately matter to us because they're a little more intangible.
And one has to wonder, of course, why previous waves of migration were OK, but this time it's beyond the pale. A lot of the rhetoric you hear about the subject suggests the problem is the current migrants are somehow inferior people -- you can see, I think, why I'd associate this with racism and xenophobia.
I didn't imply that new cultures could not be created by the blending of others.
But it's glaringly obvious that this is mostly not what is happening in most places in the world.
What I am describing is easily demonstrated in various ways:
+ The most obvious is the lack of diversity in language, and the 'Anglicization' of many places in particular. For example, there were dozens of languages spoken across France: Nicoise was spoken in Nice, Monegasque in Monaco. This is gone now, standardized into French or Italian. The European B-school, INSEAD, used to require English/French/German - now just English.
+ Architecture: using ironically Monaco as an example, the newest area of Monaco is indistinguishable from a North American suburb, which is sublimely funny because most of the rest of Monaco has a very specific and interesting aesthetic.
+ The suburbs of Singapore, Toronto, parts of Europe - are are starting to resemble one another in ways unimaginable just a few years ago. You can be in a shopping mall in either or and it might take you a few minutes to know in which country you are in. Same stores. Nearly the same food. Same soft drinks. Same products. Similar holidays (!).
+ The globalization of brands and commercial products is a huge thing. Have you been to North Africa? They are now plastering Monoprix stores across there with the exact same merchandise that you find in France, and frankly, pretty similar to what you find here.
My father motorbkiked across North Africa in the 1970's and it was a very different place. Now - even the Tunisian youth dress effectively the same as the kids in Paris.
In storefronts across the Magrheb, Coka Cola is trying to market people away from regular Tunsian tea - this 'works' for country managers because a $2 can of coke adds more to the GDP than a 50 cent glass of tea - even of those are not good measures of intrinsic value to Tunisia.
Everyone - in every country - is now being conquered by a specific set of products band brands, representing an ever narrowing set of cultural ideals.
... and as for the UN objective - yes, it's nice that we care about people in the developed world. But
A) There is no long term economic reasoning behind the need for 'constantly more people'. This is pensioner/ponzi scheme economic problem. Pension shortfalls based on perpetual growth scenarios are obviously unsustainable ...
So ... B) Replacing one culture entirely with another is genocidal.
There is no way to replace 10's millions of Germans with people from various parts of the world, and for Germany to be German. The German culture would be extinct, and they will have bequeathed a functioning state to a nice bunch of newcomers - who might speak German - but are not otherwise German.
Were this to have happened over 100 or 200 years - possibly - this would be the evolution of culture. Sure - I get that. All cultures evolve and absorb over time.
But on the scale that the UN is proposing - this is not about 'poor people becoming Germans' - it's about 'poor people replacing Germans'. As Germans are literally replaced - well - they disappear forever. This is Orwellian.
The thing that differentiates 2017 from any period before is really one of scale. There has always been migration, there has always been movement - of course we all live in something akin to a 'compound culture'.
But that is history - what's happening now is happening 'light speed' and there is no time for cultural acclimatization. Toronto - the most diverse place on planet earth - is absolutely not developing it's own cuisine, or it's own language, or behavioural norms, musical styles. It would - over time - in a more regular scenario. But culture takes time to form, and we're moving way too fast.
Starbucks will not stop until they have 'total global saturation' - and neither will Amazon, Facebook, Coka Cola.
They will displace everything in their path, change behaviours ideas and norms to conform with their own profit motivations.
Government administrators everywhere are looking for GDP maximization and will focus on things that apparently 'increase efficiency' - like speaking English - but which mask an underlying existential cost of losing value due to lost cultural attributes - i.e. how much does the world 'lose' when people stop speaking Nicoise? And Monegasque? And various Aboriginal languages? And Slovak? It's hard to know, but it's something - and when you add it all up, it's a 'big thing'.
What happens when China enters pop decline? Pump more people into an already overpopulated country --that does not scale. Or when that hits India?
As people become wealthier, they consume more resources and want bigger houses --taking up more resources, including land (suburbanization). So even while suburbanization of China will be much more muted than in western countries, there is still a demand and expansion into previously arable lands.
[1]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2747/0272-3638.21.3.20...
Considering the cultural context of HN and the phrasing of your post I consider that a fair inference.
Europe circa 2050 should be a pretty interesting place.
Are you kidding?
Extremely low crime rates?
Exceptional innovation, powerhouse industry, dozens of cultural imperatives, engineering marvels?
It's one of the most civilized places in the world. Not easy.
"refusal to open up or otherwise encourage mass immigration"
And why would Japan turning into Brazil or America be a good thing?
Why do so many people think that it's a cultural imperative to wipe out one's culture and join the globalized morass of cultureless consumers, killing themselves over the latest Nike's and deriving their identity via their smartphone brand of choice? Constantly warring over what historic culture owns what neighbourhood? What constitutes progress? No thanks.
What you might consider to be 'authoritarian' - they might consider to be 'social cohesion'. Whereas you want to 'do whatever you want' they might consider 'one's responsibility towards society' as a more important social function.
And FYI they don't have 'social issues' out the wazoo - the opposite.
Mental health - it's an issue that is still considered taboo, moreover, with an aging population, amply problematic, no place is perfect.
In US, you buy a 3-bed house with garage and a big yard for $500,000.
However that $500,000 house with 30 Year mortgage at %4.125 actually %872,892. And that's if don't default on the house and lost it all in.
And look at the cars being driven on the road. How many drive cars that they own outright?
I mean the basic MO here is to throw endless amounts of money at every problem and the results are at best mixed.