Hacker News Reader

Comment by freitzkriesler2 | Hacker News Reader

Considering Japan has a huge birth rate collapse problem, it doesn't surprise me that they are leading the way for test tube babies.

View on HN

Is their birth rate a function of biological fertility problems?

It is a result of a proud tradition bound culture that is at odds with their economic reality.

Most couples are barely scraping by economically. Those who want children are faced with employers who expect their employees ass in seat 12 hours a day six days a week. Childcare is difficult.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/10/business/japan-...

To add to this, Japan is increasingly viewed as a harbinger for much of the Western world.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34486824

They must not care that much, since policy changes (if not cultural shift) are barely on the table. Better work-life balance is one factor that would improve the fertility rate.

Further, an attitude among Japanese women that their traditional role is bs and they want nothing to do with it. So, no marriage, no children.

It's reasonable to say, half of Japan wants their culture to continue - the men. But they need the cooperation of the women to achieve that. But they can't achieve that, without changing their culture. So deadlock.

No, it is not really the main cause.

But, GP's point could still be true - even if it's not the real underlying cause, it may be still enough to accelerate research in this area.

Why would that solve anything? I don’t think that anyone has any complaints about the process of conceiving a baby naturally, it’s what happens in the 18 years following

I read that the Japanese aren't even having much recreational sex. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-j...

Sex isn't recreational. But having said that, this is true of the West as well. So-called "casual sex" (again, does not exist), sleeping around, etc. is occurring at lower rates today than in the past. People are instead becoming porn-addicted shut-ins unable to have any sexual relations, let alone a healthy sexual relationship.

What do you mean? A lot of people use contraception so they can have sex without procreating. Most sex today is of this type.

Of course sex is (also) recreational. I’m guessing you’re coming from a religious angle, so I’ll ask: is it a sin for a married woman to have sex after menopause?

It's obtuse to conflate biological/gene-driven purpose with human motive.

> Sex isn't recreational

It is, if done well. Otherwise I suppose it's just a chore or a duty?

Maybe there’s a competitive league but it is invite-only and they haven’t told us :(

Ah, the competitive sex tournament scene! I forgot about that.

It's a very challenging contact sport, for a few gifted people.

In my head, this post was read in the voice of Matt Berry (Lazlow from What We Do in the Shadows) and it was great.

Is that trolling? Or did a time machine from the 1800's get invented while I wasn't looking?

No, really, almost all sex today is both those things, like it or not. Semantic struggling notwithstanding.

It depends on the reasons why people do not have kids. This technique would allow gay couples to have kids for example which currently they cannot without adoption in the male case.

I wonder as well how many people do not have kids because they simply cannot find a suitable partner. Maybe this will cause a further drop in the rate of marriages and partnerships.

Of course the above solutions will only create a marginal increase but an increase none the same.

I also think that if things get bad enough the government will intervene and create institutions where these kids would get born and educated. A very brave new world scenario but if the technology allows it, i would not put it past governments to solve their problems.

> . A very brave new world scenario but if the technology allows it, i would not put it past governments to solve their problems.

This is incredibly dangerous. From an American perspective, a government exists to serve its people. That is to say... government exists at the pleasure of its citizenry. If the government started actually making the babies (i.e., its population), then this is creating a whole other entity, one which we've not really considered before. What does it mean to be a government of the people when the government is creating the people? How can a government derive its power from the people, if the people only exist because the government created them. This would be a great inversion of the liberal democracies that have been the source of our immense progress over the last few decades.

I did not actually think that far. It would pose the question of education with the government potentially brainwashing the new born to keep the current government in power. Is it still a democracy if people have free vote but the government mass produces electorate fodder?

And let us say if the old generation starts seeing the truth they might turn the production slightly higher to compensate. You can go even darker and speculate that the government might keep the life expectancy low genetically to avoid this kind of issue.

Obviously it presupposes that the technology will reach that stage. I hope we will never reach the industrial scale. As long as you need a woman's body to carry the child to term you will not scale it.

Assumes 'the government' is effective and focussed. Mine can't get the garbage picked up on time. Not gonna worry about that one.

It could become focused if the situation justifies it. It does not have to start immediately as the dark plot described. Let us say we have a massive amount of casualties due to some accident. So as an emergency the government suggests to create a new crop of humans to replace the dead as a stopgap solution to get the country running normally again in 15 years or so. I think you could sell that to the population and companies would cooperate to achieve that goal initially.

Now again afterwards you would need to somehow conspire to continue the program to undermine your democracy. Probably this extreme case will never happen. But we could get into a sort in between zone where we still have an immoral usage of the technology but not as bad as it could be.

Note however that existing dictatorships will definitely try to use this to further their own goals.

Unlikely. It's so, so much cheaper and decades faster, to affect the minds of existing voters.

I often hear this argument, and while I (an american) often make this about my local government or even my local federal bureaucrats, the idea that the American government in particular is not effective and focused is just... completely wrong. No government in modern history has been so able to simply enforce its will via sheer force. The top brass of the American government is the epitome of effective and focussed. It really doesn't matter what the manager of your local DMV is like.

Government babies? Raised by the state, to serve the state.

Considering the gigantic problems of dwindling global resources, climate change, etc, birth rate collapse isn't a problem. It's a solution.

for the overwhelming majority the issue is raising a kid, not conceiving one. And given Japan's fairly unique aversion for kids outside marriage (I think it's like 2% compared to 40% in the US or Europe), this is almost completely cultural.

If you're facing the choice of not having kids or being delegated to married housewife a lot of women across East-Asia just choose to not want one. Understandable, really.

Nothing wrong with being a married housewife. It’s callous to write with a connotation that suggests there is. In fact the best argument is that children need and should have their mother around as much as possible especially in their formative years. Children aren’t a status symbol or a car or a pet.

Some women want to be housewives, some don't. You're reading a very strange connotation into the OP's comment.

There is something wrong with being forced to live any kind of life you don't want. If you don't want to be a housewife then being forced to be one if you have a child is objectively awful. Japanese women have spoken, they'd rather work than have children if it means being chained to a home. Honestly even Japanese men are spoken. The gender expectations around having children aren't pleasing for them either. No one likes being forced into a life they don't want. If all it takes to avoid that is not having kids it appears many in Japan can overcome biological drives and do that.

This is from the children's point of view, and people-who-want-more-people point of view, but doesn't consider at all the person's point of view who would be making most of the sacrifices, which is the "married housewife."

Having a stay at home parent is great. Nothing wrong with a stay at home parent. Although it would be better if it was a man.

The average man has greater physical strength than the average woman, and household chores involve lots of non-automated tasks (lifting laundry baskets, etc). Plus, it is unlikely, but if there’s a burglar, men can typically put up a better fight.

Having kids outside marriage is frowned upon in general in any civilization, and marriage correlates strongly with having children. Also a contemptuous view of "housewife" shows a disregard for how demanding motherhood is (or fatherhood is, for that matter). This is a worldwide problem, save maybe for Africa, something we also see in the liberal West. People have just become comfortable and hedonistic. Having children is not comfortable. It is demanding. It requires thinking of someone other than yourself (as does marriage, also affected by this mentality). Given the choice between a nicer house and another child, many today in the West would choose the house. Consumerism, hedonistic views of sex, keeping up with the Joneses, all these contribute to reduced birth rates. Japan is clearly about as demoralized as the West, whatever the precise causes.

Clearly in your civilization anyway. One that apparently didn't include studying anthropology at any point.

Is it typical of the conservative line these days, to just repeat their antique notions and insist everybody agrees, despite evidence? It would seem so, in media anyway.

"Men in Japan do fewer hours of housework and child care than in any of the world’s richest nations. That keeps women from getting better jobs and holds back the economy."

Slightly old but relevant piece from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/world/asia/japan-working-...

If they as a culture are no longer willing or able to reproduce, this means they have had their time under the sun. This technology is evil and will lead to immense evil. It is an abomination.

Agreed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com