Not even an artificial problem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/27/japan-shrinkin...
It claims that Japan has the lowest birth rate ever. And while it may have the lowest number of births, that is to be expected in any country with a birth rate below replacement - I.e basically the entire developed world.
In fact, as opposed to the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Japan’s fertility rate has actually been increasing for some years now. See details here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN
I really wish this meme would die, but it obviously drives clicks so people keep publishing it.
It seems to have started going up in 2005. That's really interesting and unexpected. Has anyone proposed an explanation? I know they've been trying to encourage people to form families for a while. Maybe some of their measures have worked?
I personally never looked for a partner because I'd rather spend more time watching anime.
Of course that doesn't work so well when the average fertility rate is less than 2 children per couple.
Also, the same gene can sometimes have a positive and negative effect on your chances of reproducing at the same time. For instance, suppose there's a gene that makes you want to work out instead of have sex. That might just increase your chances more than decrease in an environment where you need strength to survive (or that partners are attracted to that).
There's an interesting anecdote to support it. When the Soviet Union (with all its faults) was established, it has provided education to much broader masses of the population than ever before. You know how it turned out? When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap" didn't stop them from getting a degree and becoming bright scientists.
Yes.
> Judging from a few of the latest pop-sci books
That's not really much better than “judging from my newspaper horoscope”.
> I was under the impression that culture and nurture play a much greater role: high quality medicine, food rich in nutrients, good education available to all.
Those play a huge role in whether genetic potential will be reached, genetics play a huge role in the actual outcome given similar environment.
> When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap"
You describe an socioeconomic handicap, not a genetic one, so it doesn't really say anything about the effects of genetics.
Why?
I'd rather preserve the genes of the people who care so much about human relationships that they forego any craft, but neither extreme is really optimal.
Genes that make people form families rather than work in their craft are not exactly in a bad place, so excuse me for not being concerned about them.