this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2025
452 points (99.3% liked)

World News

50162 readers
2385 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.

As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.

Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya's “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bss03 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm all for persons voluntarily opting to have fewer (or no) progeny. Certainly, that is my intent.

But, Malthus was wrong on so many levels, and regulating reproductive activity even with the best of intent is going to be abused by eugenicists for genocide.

The already posted SK vid explains how the current social systems in most countries need at least replacement birth rates. It might be possible to have a society that could survive less-than-replacement birth rates, but I don't see how.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

but I don’t see how.

Tax the F out of the rich and give it to child-bearing families. The amount is based on the rate of decline. Hand it out as a monthly stipend, and enforce checks for kids' quality of life.

Free government-staffed daycare.

3 Months Paid Paternity/Maternity, guaranteed jobs.

Free Fertility Clinics.

It's going to be expensive AF for a generation or two.

[–] bss03 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's not how to survive with less-than-replacement birth rates, that's how to get higher-than-replacement birth rates (possibly without immigration). (I will admit that I was unclear that I meant "I don't see how" to long-term sustain population decreases.)

But, absolutely, to get more birth, you need to have lots of support for child-raising, so that it is seen as more joyful than it is stressful. I know SK is having problems getting the political (or even democratic) will to implement those things, and even if they did all of that today AND birth rate immediately soared, they'd still have a "demographic squeeze" that their current economy can't sustain.

I don't think Japan is facing the demographic squeeze, yet. I don't think you'd find much support for these "COMMUNIST" ideas among Kamiya's followers, tho.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

It's tunable. You don't need to exceed, you can run at 99.95 and slowly back down.

Still going to have the geriatric problem, but that seems more approachable.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It might be possible to have a society that could survive less-than-replacement birth rates, but I don’t see how.

I want to add that historically, in the US from 1680 to 1880, the population has grown by approximately 3% annually. Source

(In the table, since the growth rate given is per 10-year interval, you have to divide it by 10, roughly, to get 3% annual growth)

This suggests that it should be possible (at least in theory) that the population can shrink at the same speed, i.e. 3% annually. This would mean an average fertility rate around 0.66 children/woman. Currently, in most western nations, it's around 1.4, while 2.1 would be "replacement levels", i.e where the population numbers stagnate.

The reason why i think you can have a 3% annual population decline is because it's kinda symmetric: instead of a surplus in children (which eat and consume resources but don't contribute through their labor power), you have a surplus of old people (which, mostly, also consume resources but don't work). So, the situation is kinda symmetric, and that's why i suggest that it should be possible.

[–] bss03 2 points 1 day ago

because it’s kinda symmetric

That's not what I've been told, but I'm not an expert.

I imagine part of that is due to an interaction with economics, particularly inflation. A 3% inflation is considered healthy, but a 3% deflation is almost certainly a monetary system in a death spiral.