You must log in or register to comment.
Japan’s birth rate isn’t even that low anymore comparatively to other nations.
Take a look at South Korea. It’s nearly half of Japan. Japan is like 1.3 (OP’s article) and SK is at 0.7 (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-koreas-fertility-rate-dropped-fresh-record-low-2023-2024-02-28/). SK is the absolute dead last in the world. Even China is lower than Japan now at 1.2 even after getting rid of the 1 child policy.
Think the west is any different? Canada also hovers at round 1.3. (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canadas-birth-rate-has-dropped-off-a-cliff-and-its-because-nobody-can-afford-housing - just sourcing 1.3, I don’t actually agree with their reasoning) Canada’s population only increases because of massive immigration they accept. And immigrants from poorer countries are more likely to have children than existing. So, might even rival SK if we were to not count 1st/2nd gen immigrants, though we don’t have such exact data collection, only corollary.
I see what you’re trying to say but immigration simply is an important part and especially feasible for huge countries like Canada. Good luck on getting proper immigration programs up and running in SK, Japan or especially China though. Foreign workers are of course at an all time high in Japan, but it‘s not on a western level and the push back is fierce there as well. The stigma there is on a whole different level, making immigration especially uncomfortable.
And yet, business as usual continues. The older decision makers have to move out the way for things to progress. The same is true in many other countries.
While lower birth rates may lead to economic issues on a medium term (too many old people VS. too few young people), it’s probably one of the most efficient measures to combat climate change. Less people comsuming ressources means less pollution and hopefully also less competition and conflicts for said ressources.
Even though I’ll be probably one of the many old people one day that the society may not be able to support adequately, I think that it’s positive news for humanity.
From my perspective, the best way to deal with a shrinking population would be a shift away from capitalism in its current form. Infinite growth, bigger, faster etc. is not a realistic and definitely not a sustainable target.
We should focus on the basic needs to make food, housing, care etc. affordable for everyone with as few working hours as possible, so that less people are able to do the job.
Eco-fascism ain’t it chief.
The most effective measures, is actually holding the big polluters (a handful of international companies) accountable.
Furthermore capitalism needs to be ditched in any form.
What exactly is facism about naturally (non-enforced) lowering birth rates?
Because linking population to environmentalism is like the most basic premise of ecofascism.
Sure you’re presenting the ‘lite’ argument of ‘hey if it’s just happens on its own, that’s good I’m not saying to actually do it’ but you’re still promoting the underlying belief that population is one of the root causes and planting seeds that lowering population is the “most efficient measures to combat climate change”
I read through the article and still can’t see how my post is related to facism. If we assume a number of X humans with an average environmental footprint of Y that leads to an overall footprint for humanity of X * Y.
If we want to bring that number down, this can by achieved by lowering either of the factors. If you want to cut pollution by let’s say 50% with a constant polulation, it goes along with harsher cut backs for the individuals’ lifestyle. Looking at the current discourse, such cut backs are highly controverse and measures in that direction are rarely accepted (‘they want to take out meat’, ‘they want to take our cars’ etc.).
If the number of humans decreased by 25% due to a naturally lowered birth rate, it means that the individual pollution must be lowered only by 33% instead of 50% to achieve the same result. I would argue that less individual impact will lead to a higher acceptance for a environment-friendly humanity.
If I wrote ‘kill the poor’ or something like that I’d get your point but I just said that fewer people will have a positive impact on nature. Which is not facism but a simple fact.
By the way. Your liked Wikipedia article also warns about the term ‘ecofacism’ being misused by the far right to discredit any form of pro-environment statements. So, please think twice before if you really want to use that term and call random people fascists.
Detractors on the political right tend to use the term “ecofascism” as a hyperbolic general pejorative against all environmental activists, including more mainstream groups such as Greenpeace, prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg, and government agencies tasked with protecting environmental resources.
if we assume
Wrongly, though. The average westerner even does not pollute enough to make a difference, but the rich and the corpos do make all of the difference. Taylor swift pollutes more per year than I ever could even if I tried in my lifetime.
On the other hand the population lowering, anti-civ, anti-industry, an-prim and eco-fash arguments are just eugenics because a lot of disabled, neurodivergent and queer people rely on those things
I have no clue why you’re now bringing up eugenics. Like WTF! Where the hell did I write anything even remotely related to that? Or anything against queer folks?
And just because the richest people are by far the worst polluters doesn’t invalidate my argument at all. If the overall number of humans changes over time, that also impacts the number of the super rich. If we have 10 billion humans instead of 8, there will be more rich people, more middle class and more people suffering from poverty.
On top of that more people mean more natural ressources have to be consumed for heating, agriculture, transportation etc.
We definitely should change society in a way that the super polluters are held accountable for their damage but that doesn’t mean that this is the only relevant figure and the only thing that helps.
A slowly shrinking humanity has definitely a better ecological impact than a growing one. And as long as that happens without external force, that’s a positive thing for me.
I do not agree that you are being fascist, but I do think you are pointing the finger at individual humans when you should be pointing it at the 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions.
I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn’t even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it’s all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?
And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.
Why should we use fossil fuels at all? That’s not a population issue.
Removed by mod
My Mexican people? Where are they? Do japanese tortillerias not exist? Tortillerias are the key! We Mexican people fuck like bunnies supposedly allegedly. So just bring a few, do some testing and if they like the results let’s get some more!
Do japanese tortillerias not exist?
Not really. Also, finding good mexican food in Japan can be quite rough (especially out of the bigger few cities, and many places adjust to Japanese tastes).
Sounds like a job for a special kind of Mexican. All we need is one who can carry a corn seed to fruition. From there, once you got 1 ear of corn and probably beans too, you can mexicanize. That’s the reason there are no humans in Mars yet. Why? No tortillas man!
They don’t want Mexicans, or any other peoples, they want to stay in their little racist bubble.
That’s what I hear. I mean Mexico is no different. It’s shocking for me going back to Mexico and all you see is Mexican people. I feel more at home because everyone is relatively the same and looks like me. But I’ve gotten used to the huge variety of the USA. Man, here, even at my job now, we got people from all places, Mexico obviously, Cuba, India, the US obviously, England, Korea, China, Philippines. We’re a small company and look how even if it was just one person from each different place, we are already at a nice 10% multicultural. And it really feels at home. I’m happy listening to all sorts of ways of being.
You need a 4-year degree and a company to sponsor you which, compared to a lot of countries, is a fairly low bar. You can also go the education route and go to language school and/or university here. There are also other ways to come over in addition to that. The above poster seems to just be repeating bullshit or have a chip on their shoulder.
Man, someone should tell them that so they can revoke my status of residency that they keep accidentally renewing every single time for the better part of a decade now. And the people that employee me in Japan. And the people who let me buy a house in Japan.
Oh wow residency! And they graciously allow you to renew it!
Gee golly, what’s the foreign born citizenship rate at?
You did not mention citizenship in your post. Japan does not allow dual citizenship (there are some grey zones here, however). The bar to apply for citizenship, however, can actually be lower than the bar for permanent residency in some cases. As for how many people give up their citizenship to naturalize, I can’t be bothered to look right now. I personally know one person who did and have heard from others.
Being a temp worker who can be kicked out at any time would not imply you’re wanted there - so it’s kind of a given. Even if we factor residency into it, you’re looking at 3% of the population being non-Japanese.
Japan is famously xenophobic, just because you’re allowed to work there doesn’t change that. You’ve been there a decade, do the locals consider you Japanese?
I mean, that’s the way immigration works in most countries around the world for average people. I don’t have to like it, but I will have PR next year.
Yeah, last I looked between 2.5 and 3 percent are non-Japanese with about .5 of that being non-Asian.
I don’t care whether the locals consider me Japanese or not; that’s not an important thing for me. My relationship with my neighbors is fine. My wife’s family loves me and we get along very well. People in my neighborhood will strike up conversation when they see me out gardening. That’s fine for me. I don’t aspire to “be Japanese” and I don’t know what that even means. I aspire to be part of my community.
Does Japan have its issues? Absolutely. Are there policies that disproportionately affect foreigners? Unfortunately, yes (though things have been slowly improving in my decade here, on the whole). However, none of this is particularly unique to Japan, either.
