Japan readies ‘last hope’ measures to stop falling births
ft.com
ft.com
Roughly ~22% (can't tell due to the graphical nature) responded "Struggling to conceive".
If you have a full FIFTH of your population willing but not able to have children, that's a lower hanging fruit to pick than somehow incentivising people who don't want to have children to change their mind.
Fertility treatment is almost never brought up... as though it were taboo. That needs to change. The cost of an IVF cycle is somewhere around $20,000 USD. It's a huge cost to bear as an individual, it's a drop in the bucket for a government, and pays for itself many times over when the conceived child enters the workforce.
> A woman's fertility peaks lasts during the twenties and first half of thirties
The US has 330 million people, and assuming a roughly equal split means you're looking at ~165 million Men and 165 million women.
Assume that 1/3 of those 165 million women are able to have kids -- they're not too young, or post-menopausal. That's ~55 million women who can have kids.
If there is even a tiny amount of issues with being over age, like that only impacts 1-4% of pregnant women, that's still anywhere form 0.5 to 2.2 million pregnancies.
2 million babies that are going to not happen, or have problems. There are US states with fewer people. Even a tiny variance here can impact large populations greatly.
Something's off with society and incentives, but I'm at a loss for how to fix it.
Taking the context of dating in richer nations: If a dude from a rich country wanted to find a good wife, they would probably be better off looking in poorer nations where people aren't as likely to be spoiled, self-absorbed shits. Women in richer nations tend to want to screw around until they're 35-45 and then have an instant husband and kids. The last apartment complex I made the misfortune of selecting was bursting with mostly non-Ivy League office workers whose sole goals in life were sex, drugs, alcoholism, and imagining themselves as wealthy celebrity IG models. <unsolicited-dating-advice-department> I turned down this absolutely gorgeous woman mid-/early-20's who telegraphed she was self-centered, superficial, uncurious, and in a "maybe open" relationship, e.g., open to fooling around or an upgrade. The advice bit: A dude (or anyone really) can save themselves much grief by not monopolizing conversation and actively listen to the words and actions of others. In my calculus, it's cheaper and less painful to get an FWB if you need that but keep them at a distance. Most just aren't relationship material. Plus, I don't see how anyone in a richer country can find a reliable spouse when there is zero social context and zero accountability for behavior: dating apps only exacerbate the situation.
80's Eddie Murphy ridiculous bits notwithstanding, places like Rwanda are still socially conservative and fairly traditional. Certain Catholic-heavy countries and small island nations also tend to be very traditional. I don't mean "backwards" in ways like the Taliban, but have greater social cohesion, a sense that other people matter, and neighborliness.
How many jobs are fulfilling enough one would want to sacrifice family time, or even just housework for? Doctors, scientists, architects, engineers, artists.. after that, the vast majority of jobs are just a way to make ends meet, not a means of self-fulfillment.
Is this the cost in Japan or is this the cost in the US? Not trying to provoke a discussion on US healthcare, but it’s less than half that cost here in New Zealand (and additional subsidies are available too). Healthcare tends to be relatively inexpensive in New Zealand relative to the US IVF may be cheaper in Japan?
https://www.fertilityassociates.co.nz/treatment-costs-and-pa...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-high-cost-of-ivf/DXTXOVBNF...
This is extremely controversial in many circles, but subsidizing IVF for native born citizens, especially college educated, in countries like South Korea, Japan and the West has statistically better results than population increase through immigration. The effect are even more pronounced in countries with family-based immigrations, as often immigrants once settled will sponsor their aging parents into the country.
Just giving incentives to these families to have a third child (bearing in mind it requires more space, larger vehicle and so on) would have outsized returns compared to the negligible costs.
Note that I'm pro-immigration but it's about time we recognize it won't and can't solve all demographic problems. [0] [1]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/03/07/the-ma...
[1] https://hbr.org/2020/05/research-the-immigrant-income-gap
Of course no society is forced to welcome outsiders, and from my very detached anthropological view on the situation, it looks like the Japanese would rather die (slowly, and then perhaps very suddenly as the weight of their society can no longer be borne by the next generation) than change.
Global fertility rate is only 2.4. Anything below 2.1 is a shrinking population. Yea, Japan could borrow population from China, but they will just be shrinking that population. Some countries in Africa still have significant positive fertility rates, but that is expected to drop dramatically if/as standards of living are increased.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/total-fer...
“Oooh you’re so selfish” hell yeah I am. I get one life why would I waste it doing something I don’t want to do for a future I won’t even see?
Edit: thanks for the downvotes without explanation. If you have a blanket expectation for other people to live their lives according to your ideologies (even if it makes them unhappy), perhaps take a second to consider what you’re asking of them.
If you have ever paid attention to the comments a childless person (women in particular) receives, it’s not hard to see how they would end up a smidge jaded at society.
Suggestions of blindly following a flag because it’s your colour and casting shade on patriotism may provoke some?
> it looks like the Japanese would rather die than change.
Which, in context, was framed negatively, implying that Japanese people should be doing something they don’t want to do to avoid the collapse of their future society.
If you read my comment with this frame in mind, it might make more sense.
> [...] If you have a blanket expectation for other people to live their lives according to your ideologies (even if it makes them unhappy), perhaps take a second to consider what you’re asking of them.
Rhetorical question: are you also one of those childless types who objects to your taxes paying to fund public schools?
Everything you consume or enjoy in your self-centered, hedonistic life is only available to you because others did things they didn't want to do for beneficiaries they'd never see. Even retirement is a pipe dream-- not everyone lives to see theirs. But we all do our part in the meantime. Except you, for some reason.
Your outlook is tone-deaf and antisocial (and not in the cool/edgy way), hence the lack of popularity. You'd be more popular were you to brag about making your living stealing candy from children and selling it back to them.
Why is it rhetorical? Because you made an assumption about my position without actually knowing where I stand? Which is actually incorrect, as I’m a huge proponent of the public education system. You seem to have confused my personal preference to not have children for something else entirely.
> Everything you consume or enjoy in your self-centered, hedonistic life is only available to you because others did things they didn't want to do for beneficiaries they'd never see. Even retirement is a pipe dream-- not everyone lives to see theirs.
This is not true at all. I live in a capitalistic society. Virtually everything I enjoy exists because it makes someone rich, not because someone altruistically gave up their life to make my life better. You’ve also placed a negative connotation towards my selfishness and hedonism. Can you please explain why it’s not acceptable for to enjoy my short time on earth?
> But we all do our part in the meantime. Except you, for some reason.
This statement proves my point. You believe I’m “not doing my part” in society based solely on me not wanting to have children (ignoring the fact I pay taxes, donate to charities and whatnot). You want me to live my life in accordance with your ideology, even if it makes me unhappy.
> You'd be more popular were you to brag about making your living stealing candy from children and selling it back to them.
Are you serious with this statement? You believe extorting children is more acceptable than living childfree?
Countries that do have significant immigration rarely see an increase in the native fertility rate. So the Japanese will die regardless*, immigration just means someone else will also inhabit their country.
In other words, you're offering a solution for the Japanese landmass, not the Japanese people.
*Assuming current trends hold for centuries, which they surely won't.
Actually no, because these immigrants are not going to replace the entire Japanese population in one click, rather they will keep the country running and prevent the economic system from crashing in front of new Japanese kids.
Basically supplement the needed kids to reach/exceed the replacement rate.
I doubt that's going to be the majority of kids in the case of Japan.
Same thing, just gradual instead of instant.
As I said the goal here is to supplement native kids with immigration, not replace them.
Kids are way way easier to integrate than adults, so for immigration, they are probably the best subject.
This applies to Japan too, the difference is they don't accept reality.
America is really an immigrants country, and its easy to integrate there compared to countries which have less of a globalized culture, such arguably Germany and maybe the UK.
Anyone who thinks that it takes ‘magic’ to turn someone who was born in Germany or Japan into a German or Japanese person is implicitly subscribing to some bogus theory of racially pure nations. (See e.g. your sibling comment, by someone who’s persistently been repeating far right talking points over the past few months.)
I agree, there will be difficulties for sure, but immigration is at its easiest for children.
In contrast, Japan represents a small number of peoples, and it's laughable to suggest that someone can become Japanese or German by a mere act of bureaucracy.
Someone want to tell this lad about Western societies?
> a solution for the Japanese landmass, not the Japanese people.
This is literally the case. Already in the 1980s, as Japan seemed headed toward becoming the world's dominant economic power, there was debate throughout Japanese society over how much of outside society Japan should be willing to absorb. Public opinion surveys found the populace wanted to preserve their society as it was, regardless of the economic consequences. I think it was in the 1990s that the government began to emphasize policies with that intent.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Japan
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submersion_of_Japan
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Sinks:_People_of_Hope
Even countries like Bangladesh will start shrinking in this century. I’m less worried about those because (1) I think Islam provides some back-pressure to keep birth rates from collapsing totally as in countries like South Korea; and (2) Bangladesh and India are quite a bit more densely populated than Japan, which really isn’t that crowded.
Japanese doctors made a big chunk of their money performing abortions. They lobbied to outlaw most forms of birth control, because it interfered with their abortion revenue.
There are plenty of stories of Japanese doctors saying, “Your pregnancy test is positive, when should we schedule the abortion?”
This wasn’t formal government policy, but the government did support it.
The birth control pill wasn’t legalized in Japan until the 1999. Plan B wasn’t legalized until 2011. Abortion by medication is still illegal.
Did I say that it resulted in more births? I don’t think it did.
>>> Asian societies turned population control into a quasi-religious endeavor in the 1960s and are now paying the price
>> What kind of population control did Japan engage in in the 60s?
> Your response about no prescription abortions and birth control but instead doctors push abortions.
I'm totally missing your point about how Japan is engaging in population control. For example, if prescription abortions were legal and they pushed birth control instead, is the net effect a meaningful change in policy that would prevent them from "now paying the price"? I guess I'm totally missing how your criticism of their policies relates back to the original discussion that Japan's low birth rates are a result of population control and how addressing the critique you wrote would in any way change their birth rate.
"japan birth control policy" came up with this VERY detailed NIH discussion of Pst-WW2 Japanese birth control policy. literally first hit.
Even specific very specific queries aren’t returning anything.
It seems search engines are focusing more on what they want to show you, rather than what you want to see.
Finding the most reliable path to success.
I am left with no family.
Economic conditions are a powerful factor in shaping norms, though in industrialized countries economic stability and stronger social safety nets are associated with reduced birthrates, “economic pressure” is thus more likely to be the opposite of the explanation.
No, its true among countries in the developed West, both across countries at the same time and within countries over time, without subsistence farming being a significant factor. There's theory as to why speculating in the role of family as disability/unemployment/old age support being more critical with relatively weaker social support networks and less so with stronger ones.
(My personal pet speculatio is that its more subrational, and that humans are loosely biologically programmed in a way that generalized insecurity — perhaps signalled through accummulated effext of stress hormones — mitigates the degree to which humans are inclined to K-strategy in reproduction, and that’s an important factor in adaptability to environmental change on timescales shorter than evolution; lots of things in nature have a stress/reproduction response like that.)
In real terms as far as I can tell: young having to support more old and less competitive on the world stage. There’s not many complaints from the news about those though.
What they complain about is how wages will increase as labor supply tightens (hence the push for more and more immigration) and business profits will fall. So many Ponzi schemes will become ineffective. In other words, it’s going to be harder to be a rich person. Why should we have to sell out our culture via mass immigration to protect the rich and their market sizes?
Now imagine those scientists manage to have 3 kids a piece - what do you think is getting put on the back burner?
For example, the limit of 0.99^n is 0.
There is no way the population stabilizes unless the birth rate increases to replacement rate. The birthrate is WAY, WAY below replacement rate.
Also, why assume that something will stabilize? That assumption seems not rooted on any evidence.
On the other hand: there is absolutely 0 evidence to suggest that the population wouldn't stabilize. There are sub populations of humans that already have stabilized populations, this is true throughout the animal kingdom. If it's just preferences to not have kids, then those people will see their genetic line stopped and the people with preferences to have kids will see their genes dominate. If it's environmental, then our path will look a lot like that of other animals experiencing environmental shifts: certainly tough, but if you can adapt fast enough you'll be ok.
Right now, the main reason people don't have kids who want them is finances. The likely outcome here looks like the economy will winnow as a consequence until having kids becomes a positive financial decision (and that might mean going back as far as subsistence living in a worst case scenario). Regardless, the population will stabilize short of an asteroid or other catastrophe.
There's not a single precedent ever for what you suggest. The population stabilizing is the default for all of nature.
Your argument about sub populations can be just as easily applied to humans as a whole. Perhaps humans will be replaced by another species.
If you look at nature more coarsely, you don’t see population stabilization. Instead you see speciation and extinction due to random and constant changes. Perhaps there will be an environmental event that we would otherwise survive that will do us in because of our low population.
I don't know if it is possible to overstate how much things will change. The service staff you interact with at Starbucks, the grocery store, who deliver your meals, will no longer be affordable. These places will still exist in some form (though there will likely be fewer) and they will be much more automated than they even are now. These people will be so needed elsewhere that salaries will likely draw them to other industries critical to society continuing to function. Healthcare, in particular, will swallow up as much of the population as it is able to (much more than even now in a relative, not absolute sense).
We will have to make hard choices about continuing to support things like suburbs and other far-flung infrastructure that only barely made sense as long as you assumed more and more houses would be built and that property taxes would continue to go up to support it all. That will no longer be true, those houses will start to go empty, then the surrounding commercial properties. There will not be anyone interested in buying them. Some will be torn down, many will probably rot in place. This has already been in progress for decades in economically depressed areas, particularly the so-called "Rust Belt" in the United States.
There will (and already are) massive brain drains in key industries where skilled older workers are either not being replaced, or by those with much less directly applicable experience. The ability to maintain our infrastructure will become strained to the point where we will have to ask ourselves how we can safely reverse our maintenance and operation commitments alongside a constantly shrinking population while avoiding single points of failure that could trigger a panic or societal collapse. This is not far-fetched alarmism, the way we currently live, we are only a week or two of regional or national power outages away from complete anarchy. So many of our systems are interrelated, that a failure of one or two critical ones can have a cascading effect. The smaller local outages in Texas in 2021 was minutes away from leading to nearly months-long blackouts for this reason.
We will need more redundancy and slack in the system to manage these when they occur. Market capitalism abhors redundancy as inefficient so this will not be highly incentivized to be taken on by any one corporation, leading to governments likely deciding to impose extreme regulation or outright nationalize industries.
Interestingly, the United States may be one of the few societies where things more or less run along as normal, but this is only assuming a continued or increasing permissive immigration policy. The more we go the way of the Japanese, all of the above applies.
These same people just a few decades ago were saying we're on track for runaway population growth because they couldn't imagine birth rates slowing. Now they say we're on track to go extinct because they can't imagine birth rates every picking up again. There are communities even in developed countries that are at an equilibrium birth rate, and the rest of the world will get there. That's simply how nature has worked over and over. The population will continue to grow, slow, then level off. Maybe decline somewhat, but find it's new equilibrium.
There's pretty simple logic to this too from natural selection: the types of people who don't want kids will see their genetic line end or can't, the people who do want kids and can will see their lines continue. The remaining over time will be people more and more inclined to have kids and the environmental effects will decline the population until we're at a sustainable level. Nature is self-correcting, always has been, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence for why that wouldn't just happen here too. These same corrective mechanisms are the same in the economy.
If you want it to work, ten-fold the budget or focus it in one administrative zone and see how it does.
Doing it half-heartedly isn't going to help. You need to guarantee an 18 to 20 year commitment to the program so that potential parents have assurance.
One of THE biggest problems is that women wind up carrying the weight of both sets of elderly parents in Japan. Why should a woman get married and double her burden for an indefinite amount of time--often longer than raising a child! You need elder care support and services in order to free up the younger generation to actually have children.
At the end, it's all about money. Society is going to have to funnel a whopping amount of money at young women to convince them to take on all the downsides of getting pregnant and raising a family.
The Axis countries of Germany, Japan and Italy have particularly steep declines in population with current generations simply unwilling to procreate. To not consider the impact of WW2 is a mistake. It’s not about fertility, it is about being defeated.