this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
137 points (98.6% liked)

Global News

5404 readers
532 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.


Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) where title is not clear enough from which country the news is coming from.


Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Japan’s demographic crisis is deepening faster than expected, with the number of births this year on track to fall below even the government’s most pessimistic projections.

Archived version: https://archive.is/20251228215131/https://slguardian.org/japans-birth-rate-set-to-break-even-the-bleakest-forecasts/


Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drbluefall@toast.ooo 39 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

Trust me, a growing elderly population with a shrinking working-age workforce to sustain them is very much not a good thing.

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

Can you define what sustainability looks like? One farmer has never been able to produce more. Maybe a country makes less widgets, but I don't all the doom and gloom when taking care of the basics has never been more attainable for all.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

But AI told me AI can solve that.

[–] GraveyardOrbit@lemmy.zip 30 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

In the short run maybe not, but for the long term health of the earth and her inhabitants it’s a necessity. Capitalism is built on a myth of infinite growth, we produce more than enough for everyone to live a good life.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

not good for a countries, culture, and people, and this also devestate the economy eventually

[–] GraveyardOrbit@lemmy.zip 8 points 12 hours ago

Population decline isn’t a forever thing. A group of animals is overpopulated they decline until reaching equilibrium with their environment. 4B humans would be plenty for all the cultural richness you could ever hope for. As for the economy, I view that as a good thing. Either capitalism dies or we do, the economic system is incompatible with a universe of finite resources

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (2 children)

long term health of the earth and her inhabitants it’s a necessity.

No. This has been brought up and debunked by experts. Despite the rapidly falling birth rate, it will take centuries to overcome population inertia. Changes will not happen anywhere close to fast enough to save us from the environmental crisis we are facing. If anything, it may make things worse as an aging elderly population means the young generation is preoccupied trying to take care of them instead of dealing with the shit they left behind.

Our ideal birth rate would be between neutral to very gradual decline, not the cliff jump we're currently facing.

[–] dr_scientist@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure if 'brought up and debunked by experts' is the best argument out there. For example, 'population inertia' would cover only one lifespan, not centuries. That is to say, whatever the population is now, it could be 10 people to 100 billion people within 100 years. This is not discounting cultural and psychological factors, but if we're talking human behaviour, that's literally everything.

Secondly, the population decline is hardly a cliff. It is decreasing in some countries like Japan, but when added into the global picture, we're not even at neutral. We're still growing.

You are absolutely right that a larger aging population is something that must be addressed. However, if increased population pressure leads to a tipping point, like a shift in the AMOC or immigration pressure from hotter areas to cooler areas, our current treatment of old people doesn't fill me with confidence. I think in a crisis, we would sacrifice them anyway. We would write some sympathetic think pieces about it though.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works -5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

population decline is hardly a cliff.

Population decline in Japan and similar countries is absolutely a cliff right now, hence the article.

We're still growing.

That's largely due to said population inertia. The current best estimates of actual worldwide fertility rate has us anywhere from 2.0 to 2.2. There's a possibility we've already dropped below replacement rate worldwide.

Not sure if 'brought up and debunked by experts' is the best argument out there.

Unless actual scientific data showing otherwise is brought to a discussion, 'appeal to authority' is NOT a fallacy.

[–] dr_scientist@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

Appeal to authority is neither a fallacy nor proof. It is rhetoric. It proves nothing, and disproves nothing.

For example, your authorities debunk "long term health of the earth and her inhabitants it’s (sic) a necessity." My authorities, like William Catton or Meadows, et. al. would say otherwise. Invoking them doesn't prove my perspective. It does prove there is much debate about the subject.

In such instances, defining metrics and showing your work, as the math teachers say, is the best way forward.

The article in question, for example, relies on hype like '670,000, a level never previously recorded since national statistics began in 1899.' Level of what? Percentage of population? Actual number of people? Compared to how many? With the priviso, for example that ‘The expected figure, … excludes children born to foreign residents”. How many of those? I suspect not many, but it’s necessary to know.

What the article could have stated are actual metrics such as replacement rate, which in Japan is 1.20. South Korean is considerably lower, at 0.72-0.74. We could use words like ‘cliff’ I guess, but I prefer numbers, and I would encourage their use in articles such as this.

[–] GraveyardOrbit@lemmy.zip 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

A smaller population is necessary but not sufficient to combat climate change in the far far term. You’re right it won’t happen fast enough to save us from climate change but in the long run if we want a decent standard of living for human beings especially with a far lessened climate impact, we’re likely far beyond the carrying capacity of the earth.

Population growth is obviously next to impossible to project but the low end of figures I’ve seen show a decline to below 8B by 2100 which is a start.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 6 points 12 hours ago

It's hard to say what the actual carrying capacity of earth is, if we were trying to optimise for sustainability and not profit or special interests. Would we be sustainable today, if we were full on renewables and batteries, vat grown meat, no plastic waste, etc? There's so many things that could be done for major impact but aren't, for all we know we aren't even anywhere close to earth's carrying capacity with current or near future tech.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 14 points 14 hours ago

That's only if they keep their current system though. Why would they do that if they can see it won't work out going forward? Their economic system will need to evolve and that's ok.

Why should people change their behaviors to suit the economy instead of just changing the economy?