• LilyVess@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 hours ago

    That’s not birth rates, that’s fertility rate. One measures births/1k and the other is an average of births per woman on their “child bearing lapse”.

    Japan might have a fertility rate of 1.2 but they have 6 births/1000 people. Argentina with 1.5 have 11.1 births/1000

    A more relevant measure is “Natural change”, it measure people death vs people birth not counting immigration:

    India has +13 millions. Japan has -870k. China has -2 millions.

    South Korea is “only” losing -77k people per year.

    There are like 30~ countries that have negative population per year out of 197. Birthrates and fertility rate are going down each year, but not every country is losing population by it.

    Source: https://georank.org/birth-rate

  • sunglocto@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Birth rate isnt’t the only thing, life expectancy and the age of the average population is too. This is a factor that everyone in this thread seems to be ignoring because it proves why there is an appropiate reaction to the bottom 3 countries.

  • Bricked@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Most of the former nations can at least offset this with immigration, while the latter ones don’t

      • Fleur_@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Can’t have racism if you don’t let anyone not of the majority ethnicity live in your country 🤔🤔🤔

        -Asia

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          In humanity. Some people exclude others because of the order in which they apply spreads to scones, some because they disagree about whether the bread they’re eating is literally or metaphorically a man’s body, and some because they like a different sports team.

      • treesquid@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Ok, but what happens when you have 500 million retirees that have to be supported by 300 million workers that are also trying to feed and house themselves and their children?

    • stenAanden@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Korea actually has a lot of migration of Koreans from China and Western Asia. It is actually a pretty unique situation. The Chinese Koreans already speak Korean and their culture align perfectly with Korea.

      It’s in all ways a better situation than western countries. But no, let’s pretend that Asia is collapsing. Better than fixing issues in the west.

  • treesquid@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    .8 birth rate is going to be a huge problem for South Korea in a few years. The rest are just “oh no, capitalism’s infinite growth will be finite after all”

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Lower birthrates are less an issue that people think.

      For any living being self replication can explode incredibly fast, and it’s usually the case when numbers dwindle, due more resources available per person.

      Big birth numbers are more worrying and limited resources lead to fast “too little resources for everyone” situation.

      I remember reading that part of what took Europe our of the dark ages after the black plague was that survivors thrived in an post plague environment. Also remember reading that dutch population growth actually taller because after so many people died survivors got more meat and food in general available to them, so their children grew a lot.

      So in general I’m always more worry about high birthrates than low birthrates.

      • Fleur_@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        24 hours ago

        The problem is we have retirement these days. And also the plague would’ve killed the old and frail leaving the young and capable behind. Whilst birthrate decline means there are less young people relative to old people. This burdens young people who have to take care of the old. A problem that didn’t exist when all of the old people died.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 hours ago

          I suppose the worst case scenario is old people having to work because they cannot retire as soon.

          Not ideal, but far better than starving or being homeless because you don’t have resources for so many people.

          • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            16 hours ago

            So I’m paying taxes all my life so old people don’t have to work but I might never be the beneficiary of this system myself

            • MrKoyun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              Yeah. Why not make the old people of today work to fix the mess they created? Oh wait, old people rule the world. They will just favor themselves and the rest isnt their problem. Like they have always done.

          • velma@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            It’s either that or allow immigration or start forcing women to have more children than they want.

            It’s becoming clear which way the ruling class wants to go.

      • Zarobi@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        This was true back when the economy was vague and vibes based and people kind of just died and it was ok. But now we have pensions, and it’s considered unacceptable for people to starve to death and economies to collapse, so an upside down pyramid starts to get wobbly rather than “self-resolving”.

      • the_strange@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        The growth (or in this case decline) is exponential. 1.08 is bad, 0.80 is terrifying. 1.08 is roughly half of the fertility needed for a stable population (about 2.1 children per woman). This means that per generation your population shrinks by half its size. 0.8 is another 25% lower. At an exponential rate these differences add up fast. The first one gives you (roughly) one child per 8 great grandparents. The other one needs 18. So over 3 generations the population shrinks by another factor of more than a half.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          But the birthrates are still falling everywhere. Countries that are at 1.08 today will be at 0.8 soon. I think they are just hitting the problem sooner, not that they are facing a different issue.

          • the_strange@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Here’s a visualization of the birth rates of Japan, Poland and Germany against those of South Korea:
            https://georank.org/birth-rate/japan/south-korea
            https://georank.org/birth-rate/poland/south-korea
            https://georank.org/birth-rate/germany/south-korea

            Japan and Poland have been stable, maybe slightly declining, since the early 2000s, and Germany has been stable for 50, all below replacement, whereas South Korea is still going down.

            I am no demographic expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but for the moment it doesn’t look like the other countries are going to hit the same problems at the same severity anytime soon whereas South Korea is going to get hit by the full force of their demographic issues within a few short decades.

            • AEsheron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 hours ago

              Far from comprehensive, but a good primer.

              The problem is similar to climate change. The effects of today will ripple several decades into the future, and people everywhere are more short-sighted than they would like to think, you and me included. Our brains are built for hunter gatherer lifestyles, sensing urgency in actions that will come back to us in 40-50 years just isn’t how we are programmed. Germany is already entering the danger zone, the effects won’t be stark for another 30 years or so perhaps, but if we delay much then there will be nothing to do to counterbalance it effectively. Demographic collapse is an issue that is way past mitigating by the time it becomes an acute problem. An ounce of prevention is not a pound or even a ton of cure, it’s the only cure. And when it starts to hit noticeably, that means you are just going over the side of the waterfall and it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Korea is just starting to tip over the edge of the waterfall, in 5-10 years it is going to get much worse.

              The takeaway from the meme isn’t that we are overreacting to their situation, it’s that we are underreacting everywhere else. The real insidious issue is that in most nations having this problem, society largely panders to its politically active and (comparitively) wealthy elder base, and the best way to boost the birth rate is to shift support from them towards the young, which is politically problematic. So we are stuck in a situation where those with power have to act against their interest, in order to avoid problems that will happen far later than our brains are hardwired to care about. In short, the prognosis is very bad. Imho, the only chance most western nations have is watching things get very ugly for the elderly in Asia, and using that to scare their constituents enough to convince them that short term sacrifice is needed to avoid similar conditions for themselves. But I’d say it’s a long shot.

            • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              Japan and Poland have been stable, maybe slightly declining, since the early 2000s

              I just checked Poland and it’s not what they are reporting:

              https://forsal.pl/gospodarka/demografia/artykuly/9811360,gus-potwierdza-to-rekord-dzietnosc-spadla-nizej-niz-kiedykolwiek-wcz.html

              Number of births:

              Birthrate:

              Systematically falling for the last 10 years. Yes, it was better before that but experts say it doesn’t look like stopping anytime soon. But I guess we’ll see.

              Those are data from GUS, the official statistics bureau of Poland.

      • stenAanden@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Westerners just REALLY want wealthy, peaceful Asian countries to be uniquely awful.

  • edinbruh@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    I highly doubt that the birthrate in Italy is 1.14

    The government and the media doesn’t stop yapping about how it’s declining and we are going extinct.

    This happens of course for economical reasons, and the government comes up with the most half assed “solutions” to ever cross human mind. Like “reduce VAT taxes on diapers and powder milk” like that is gonna make any difference.

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 hours ago

      It happens because women have more choice over when and how many children to have.

      That’s why you see it still falling in countries that have good economic and social safety nets.

  • PugJesus@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    I mean, South Korea and Japan’s birth rate is a serious problem.

    The issue is less that they’re going ‘extinct’, and more that the population pyramid is gonna look real fucky going forward, and that comes with… economic issues. And potentially cultural issues.

    • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Those look very similar to me. I would say Japan is now where Poland will be in 10 years. Why it’s a problem for Japan but not Poland?

      • PugJesus@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Those look very similar to me. I would say Japan is now where Poland will be in 10 years. Why it’s a problem for Japan but not Poland?

        That’s the thing about population pyramids - they don’t just move up evenly. They’re adjusted by the ongoing mortality of each age group and the size of the next age group down. Poland and Japan are on the same trajectory, but Japan is, effectively, much further along. More ~30-40 years than ~10. The emphasis is less on the largest ‘boom’ generation, and much more on the general trend of the ‘youngest’ generations shrinking, growing, or being stable. In Poland, it’s uneven - closer to shrinking than stable, but more stable than Japan, which is only shrinking.

        Even relatively small differences can have an outsized effect in making the older generations an ever-larger proportion of the population despite their lifetime mortality going up with each age bracket. Compare the percentages here. “Boom” generation aside, Japan’s retiree cohort is roughly 150% the youth cohort. That’s not a good sign. For Poland to end up with those numbers in a decade, it would have to have effectively no mortality in the elder cohorts - extremely unlikely.

        That being said, it is a problem for Poland going forward - as well as many other developed countries.

        • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          That being said, it is a problem for Poland going forward - as well as many other developed countries.

          Exactly, Japan is hitting it sooner but most countries will have the same issue eventually. The main difference I think is that Japan is still refusing to address this issue by allowing more immigration while some European countries are trying to do it already. So I think this is going to be a scary but interesting experiment. Poland will go the way of Japan, Spain will try to support the population growth with immigrants. It will be interesting to see where each will be in 30 years. We can use Japan as a canary in the meantime.

        • stenAanden@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          There is nothing that justifies the weird reaction that westerners have towards Asian countries. It’s all a spectacle to make themselves feel better.

      • PugJesus@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        It is, but not as bad. The EU’s birth rate is higher than Japan’s, and the EU is much more immigrant-friendly - and if that makes you suck in air through your teeth, let me clarify - that’s a relative estimation. SK and Japan are… infamously hostile towards immigration.

  • daannii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    We need less humans.

    Otherwise we will outgrow this planet and kill it and ourselves.

      • daannii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 hours ago

        So humans constantly multiplying and growing has zero impact on the world ?

        Only capitalist overlords want constant population growth. Because that’s the only way they increase their wealth.

        By stealing it from more people. By having more desperate people who know they are easily replaceable, work for pennies.

        Exploitation is the game. And you need more people to exploit people. Boys to fight endless wars.

        Especially since their influence on the world is likely to start decreasing life span exponentially.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        From my reading, eco-fascists demand eugenics, genocide or anti-immigration laws. Pointing out that fewer people on the planet could help, doesn’t seem fascist to me.

        • VibeSurgeon@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          The only people parroting the dumb malthusian bullshit at this point are eco-fascists.

          There’s a hard rule for each malthusian to follow, and there’s no room for negotiation on it. If you agree with the ideas, you must volunteer to go first.

          • daannii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 hours ago

            At what point did I say we need to start killing people?

            This post is about having children.

            We can all just decide to have less children and most have anyway because capitalism has made it increasingly difficult to afford children and have time to be with them.

            I myself never wanted children. I don’t have any. And I’m already at an age it would be a higher risk pregnancy.

            I have always been of the opinion that if for some reason I did change my mind about wanting children, I would become a foster parent because there are plenty of kids who need homes.

            Having a realistic perspective on population growth and it’s negative impacts is not advocating for mass killings.

            Who the fuck would think that ?

          • Zak@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Volunteering to have fewer than two children is consistent with a belief that a reduction in the human population is desirable. It does not require suicide.

    • inari@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s already happening and there seems to be nothing that can be done to stop it