Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Japan

Japan's 18-Year-Olds at Record-Low 1.06 Million on Falling Births 218

Posted by msmash from the pressing-issue dept.
The number of 18-year-olds in Japan totaled a record low of 1.06 million as of Monday, a government estimate showed, as the country continues to grapple with a falling birthrate. From a report: The number of those that have reached Japan's legal adult age fell by 60,000 from 2023 and accounted for 0.86% of Japan's total population, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications said Sunday. The year 2005, when the new adults were born, had seen the country's total fertility rate -- the average number of children a woman is estimated to bear in her lifetime -- fall to a record-low 1.26, later matched by that of 2022.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan's 18-Year-Olds at Record-Low 1.06 Million on Falling Births More

Japan's 18-Year-Olds at Record-Low 1.06 Million on Falling Births

Comments Filter:

  • I blame porn pixelation (Score:5, Funny)

    by deek ( 22697 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @12:25PM (#64121883) Homepage Journal

    Time for Japan to reverse its censorship laws in the hentai space. That'll get the locals revved up and ready to procreate! ;)

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by wonkavader ( 605434 )

      I (conditionally) agree! Frustratingly, the hentai space is really indicative of a component of the low birth rate. I think the low birth rate is excellent, and we need to repeat it everywhere, but one of the big reasons for it leads to very unhappy people -- the culture of male dominance and female passivity which, not surprisingly, a little less than 50% of Japan (most of the males) wants to hold on to and a little less than 50% of Japan (most of the females) thinks is terrible. People in the 2nd group

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Probably the opposite... One of the issues they have is young people deciding that relationships are too much work, and that the single life is actually fine. Parasocial relationships with idols, anime characters, and porn are part of the reason why young guys in particular are deciding not to pursue marriage and starting a family.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        You know, single life _is_ actually fine as is life as a couple without wanting children. Unless you desperately want children, that is. Of course, there are complete assholes spouting nonsense like not bowing to biological imperatives is a sign of "immaturity", when obviously the complete opposite is true. Most people have children primarily because they think it is expected of them. Smarter ones always knew this is not a good reason at all and have actually made a decision here forever. The only thing tha

  • A few rhings we need to do is make sure that we'll have a very low birthrate is make it extremely costly to raise kids, diets/lifestyles continue to lower fertility rates and that it's very easy to divorce while we do nothing to combat people's misguided expectations of life and relationships. Actually why not expect people to do extra work hours and at least 4-8 extra years of studies as well? Imagine some stress can come in handy as well.

    • A few rhings we need to do is make sure that we'll have a very low birthrate is make it extremely costly to raise kids, diets/lifestyles continue to lower fertility rates and that it's very easy to divorce while we do nothing to combat people's misguided expectations of life and relationships. Actually why not expect people to do extra work hours and at least 4-8 extra years of studies as well? Imagine some stress can come in handy as well.

      There is a saying becoming common among men. "The juice is not worth the squeeze", with regards to romantic attachments and coupling with women.

      Let us face it - if you marry or even cohabitate, and have children, with the divorce rate such as it is, the woman will file for divorce, and unless she is some manner of drug addict or murderess, she'll get the children and probably the house. So as a male, you are likely going to end up single, yet with the expenses largely what they were when you were marrie

      • Re:Tis the future (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @01:17PM (#64122029)

        This is something I have always heard but when actually looking into a little deeper it's far more complex then it makes it seem. I would agree that there is some inherent bias against men in family court but over the last couple decades it has actually evened out a bit.

        The issue of custody for example is selection biased by the fact that many fathers don't actually go after custody of the kids because when they do pursue the fathers actually get it more often than the mothers.

        DO YOU THINK MOTHERS `AUTOMATICALLY' GET CUSTODY? THINK AGAIN [chicagotribune.com]

        Gender Bias in Divorce: Is it More Difficult for Fathers to Win Child Custody? [bikellaw.com]

        Same thing with the house and finances, this is selection biased because in many cases it is the woman who makes a sacrifice to her career and put's it aside to raise the kids so her earning potential is cut short. Combine with with the above fact and you end up with women getting financial support because they are supporting the kids.

        Also the vast, vast majority of these divorce proceedings are decided not by a judge but in mediation, the judge just signs off on it.

        There is a big problem with divorce rates but the cause is not that we gave women no-fault divorce options, men have to share some of blame because so many even today feel that just providing a paycheck is all they have to contribute to maintain a marriage and, well, it's not the 1950's and the progress women have made is not getting rolled back, ever, so men need to learn to adapt.

        • I worked with divorced and separated couples on and off for 20+ years, and there's less bias than there was, but the "kids-go-with-mom" mentality is still very much a thing. (I was also a single father with custody so I have a little familiarity with this topic.)

          If you're a father and you want custody, you'll have to fight like hell for it, whereas most mothers barely have to open their eyes to automatically be considered the Primary Residential Parent by default.

          Yes, it's better than it was but unfortunate

          • I mean, I understand your point of view than what explains the data we see.

            If 90% of divorces are settled out of court why are men so willing to give up custody? Because they're lawyers say they won't win might explain some of it but also I really think a lot of men just don't want it.

            I feel like mothers are considered the primary caretaker because... they are often the primary caretaker and are the ones spending the most time with the children. Especially if the mother is someone who put their career on th

            • I mean, I understand your point of view than what explains the data we see.

              If 90% of divorces are settled out of court why are men so willing to give up custody? Because they're lawyers say they won't win might explain some of it but also I really think a lot of men just don't want it.

              I feel like mothers are considered the primary caretaker because... they are often the primary caretaker and are the ones spending the most time with the children. Especially if the mother is someone who put their career on the sidelines to have kids they show they are motivated to take care of the kids.

              To be clear I am not saying there isn't a bias in the system, but I think it goes a bit further into the culture than "courts hate men"

              I also understand this is a difficult thing to get clean data out of, there's a ton of conjecture everywhere about it.

              I think that you believe at best, only a tiny bias - Things like the "tender years" doctrine, and the "best interests of the child", not only give the mother legal preference, but even the ex husband having to support children she had with another man after they were divorced. https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]

              Then there is the fact that for identical crimes, men get longer sentences. But since we stepped into the legal system, here we go.

              The most amusing version of this is a woman who had her boyfrien

          • I worked with divorced and separated couples on and off for 20+ years, and there's less bias than there was, but the "kids-go-with-mom" mentality is still very much a thing. (I was also a single father with custody so I have a little familiarity with this topic.)

            If you're a father and you want custody, you'll have to fight like hell for it, whereas most mothers barely have to open their eyes to automatically be considered the Primary Residential Parent by default.

            Yes, it's better than it was but unfortunately that's not saying a lot.

            The tender years doctrine is still real https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] It has been gradually replaced by the "best for the child" doctrine, which is the situation where the woman can have a child with another man while married, yet upon divorce, the cuckhold husband will be required to support a child that is not his. And has been expanded to force men to support children she had by another man after they divorced https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]

            So yeah - men have all the advantages, in marriage.

        • men have to share some of blame because so many even today feel that just providing a paycheck is all they have to contribute to maintain a marriage and, well, it's not the 1950's and the progress women have made is not getting rolled back, ever, so men need to learn to adapt.

          And they have adapted, quite efficiently. Avoiding the entanglements and marriage is a pretty good way to adapt.

          Women can now support themselves - no man is needed at all for anything, not a paycheck, not even to be fathers - sperm donors can be found at the nearest club or on Tinder. So why would a man adapt to marry and have children?

          • Look if you don't care about marriage and children, that's your prerogative, don't bother with it, go do your thing.

            But it's obvious quite a few men want to have families and be in committed relationships. Call it biological urges, societal pressure, whatever you want but most people want to have a partner in life and lots of those people want to start families.

            If that's your goal and you are a man holding out hopes to find your ideal 1950's tradcon housewife, well, good luck out there but you'll find many

            • Look if you don't care about marriage and children, that's your prerogative, don't bother with it, go do your thing.

              I do care, your assumption is false. FWIW, I've been married 46 years now. Have one child.

              But it's obvious quite a few men want to have families and be in committed relationships.

              Not a problem for them as long as they accept any and all risks inherent in modern marriages. The statistics are out there for all to see. Some people don't like others interrupting their narrative with stats, but that's okay too. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, be it trickle down theory, flat earth, or the feminist ideal that there are no differences between penis bearers and birthing persons.

              Call it biological urges, societal pressure, whatever you want but most people want to have a partner in life and lots of those people want to start families.

              If that's your goal and you are a man holding out hopes to find your ideal 1950's tradcon housewife, well, good luck out there but you'll find many women today are looking for something more than in the past out of their partners.

              Ah yes - wel

              • The statistics are out there for all to see.

                Yeah, and i brought some. Congrats on your successful marriage but anecdotes are just that. I didn't bring my marriage up as an example because that's silly when talking about broad trends in modern day.

                Just kidding - you have different rules for different sexes.

                Maybe, I thinkw e all do because the sexes are in fact different, but I haven't brought up women's roles. But you are the one who made the claim "juice ain't worth the squeeze" which is doing that exact thing as well. You are assigning blame, I am just saying it's bit more complex than that.

                silly and inhuman males are increasingly checking out of the system

                Yeah, it's a

  • It's fine (Score:3)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @12:42PM (#64121933)

    Really, it's fine. Check periodically for environmental toxins that could be causing fertility issues, check periodically for social issues that could be involved, correct them if you feel it's worth it.

    But so long as efforts are made to support a society with an age distribution weighted towards the elderly (resulting in a lower supply of working-age people and specifically elder support workers), there's nothing particularly wrong with a declining population. We have one here in Canada but we're addicted to eternal economic growth built on population so we shore up the difference with immigration.

    When I was a kid you could afford a waterfront cottage and you could get to it. Now that's a dream for the rich, and even they have to spend half of Saturday (or worse, Friday night) getting there in traffic that's more like a parking lot than a roadway and spend the last half of Sunday getting back. And of course we're building on all the nicest land just making the issue worse. Tell me how the world would be WORSE for the next generation with more infrastructure and resources and space for them?

    As long as Japan has enough people to keep the nation viable at all, let the population shrink.

    • It's about the people of that Nation generating enough wealth that their upper crust can't hang with the upper crust of other countries. Try to imagine showing up at the yacht club and your yacht is only worth 20 million dollars when everyone else's is almost a billion....

    • "When I was a kid you could afford a waterfront cottage and you could get to it. Now that's a dream for the rich,"

      This is a simple and expected dynamic of population increases.

      There are more people, so more rich people.

      There are only so many waterfront cottages, and rich people like them.

      Therefore, the rich will own all of the waterfront cottages.

      This also explains the traffic.

      It's just the world we live in. Our children won't remember the waterfront cottage visits, they will have other memories.

      I've expos

    • Actually its the Govenments around the world FREAKING out and here's why: the entirety of capitalism is a Pyramid scheme, where you need growth of population and taxes to fund the retiring. So the system collapses in on itself when the next generation don't do enough baby making. The whole system collapses either way because unlimited growth is unsustainable, but it collapses sooner if people live within their means and dont pump out those extra workforce babies.

      Sad but true. Capitalist governments around t

      • >the entirety of capitalism is a Pyramid scheme

        I would say capitalism is a variant of the Prosperity Gospel, used by those with wealth to keep the poor poor and working for them as they accumulate ever more wealth. Government pensions and healthcare for elderly citizens are the pyramid scheme, but those aren't fundamental to capitalism.

        Having said that, I do believe that regulated capitalism including a wealth tax is probably the best economic system we have come up with so far. We just can't seem to i

        • Yeah i probably should have been less hyperbolic and stated its mostly a problem in the implementation of social security net of modern societies and has less to do with capitalism and democracy as even China has the same issues with ageing populations. But still my more reasoned point is there should be a way to deal with it more rationally than just haveing governments put incentives in place for people to have more babies (or like in china forced breeding programs: https://www.business-standard.... [business-standard.com] )

        • > I would say capitalism is a variant of the Prosperity Gospel

          You are a fucking lunatic and need to have your head examined.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem is that an ageing population needs care and pensions, which puts more burden on the working age ones. The retirees were promised all that, they feel that they worked hard to earn it and are entitled to it. But they also created a country where having a family is too expensive, but they will never accept it's their fault. Easier to blame feckless, lazy young people, and mobile phones.

  • You cannot force women to have kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MIPSPro ( 10156657 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @12:47PM (#64121943)
    Having a kid is an expression of confidence that you're going to be able to raise it. Governments pump out massive amounts of propaganda, but in the end, it's a matter of how confident do those women feel. Also, how miserable do they think having kids is going to make them? In Japan the answer is "pretty miserable". Births are the true expression of those two dynamics. Improve your people's prospects and they'll have kids on their own.

    • But sure you can. Kill all programs that tell them how to avoid getting pregnant and once they are, force them to have the kid.

      Not that I'd say you should, but look around yourself (provided you're in a red state in the US), you should be able to see first hand that yes, you can indeed force women to have kids.

    • You can't force women to have kids? Mind you criminalizing abortion has been repeatedly shown to have little or no impact on birth rates but what you can do is take away women's education and jobs.

      The problem is if you do that your productivity collapses and you're in no better shape than if you didn't do it in the first place.

      The nut that every single ruling class is trying to crack is how to get women to crank out babies while working so much that they don't ever actually get to see the babies the

      • > I don't think they'll find a way to do it but they're going to do a lot of stupid and nasty things trying to find it before we come to our senses and stop letting them make decisions about our lives

        Eliminate welfare, social security, such that the only "welfare" you can rely on is a large family.

    • While I agree with you on one level, I worked with a teacher who apologized to me for having to go on maternity earlier than planned (life happens!) just before state test prep was set to begin. I have heard similar stories also from women who thought they were burdening their coworkers (empathy) and the students (many of whom cared little about the test anyway.) We have come to a point when many (especially college educated) are made to feel some level of shame for procreating, or receive some level of i

    • Are you so sure it's the women making these decisions? Seems like a lot of men these days are the roadblocks to parenthood.

      • Well, you make a good point. In a situation with a new couple, a responsible man could also have a say in the decision. He might want to put parenthood off for a any number of valid reasons in today's environment. Then there is also the case of many men just being abject losers who women eschew as a parenting partner.

  • Knew this 17.9 years ago (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greytree ( 7124971 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @01:07PM (#64121997)
    This story is 17.9 years old.

  • Oh noes, technology is making workers more productive whilst overpopulation is straining natural resources! And now this, a falling birthrate! Disaster!

  • Nevertheless, the population of the world is still a record high, at 8 billion https://fox8.com/news/world-po... [fox8.com] and growing,

    and the U.S. population is growing by one person every 24 seconds https://www.npr.org/2024/01/01... [npr.org]
    (partly immigration, but with one birth every 9.0 seconds and one death every 9.5 seconds https://www.axios.com/2023/12/... [axios.com] we're growing even without immigration).

  • The government should indirectly subsidize outreach to young adult to go outside, have game, and improve their relationship skills. They'll be swimming in babies.

  • Evolution at work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01, 2024 @01:46PM (#64122123)
    Those who breed will produce more like them.

    Those who don't breed won't produce any like them.

    I do see some parents who should have kids - they're great parents. We should have more people like them.

    Unfortunately they seem to be a minority. I think what will happen is the irresponsible ones will continue to dominate - it's easier to pop out kids, not be able to feed them and then ask others to help (go look at those sponsor a child sites, look at the children info/details and you'd see plenty of irresponsible/evil parents).

    Much of the suffering in this world is and has been because of irresponsible people who breed without being able to feed and raise their children properly.

  • You need tribal instincts and natural / biological sex roles to produce a replacement rate of babies. Those instincts vanished with the birth of widespread hedonistic consumer culture in the 70ies and the rise of industrial abundance. That has spread around the globe and is still spreading.

    As soon as basic societal mechanisms aren't the natural mode of interaction for humans they appear to unlearn/forget how to mate and recognize the value of offspring and family. That's what it looks like to me.

    Given the d

    • Given the data it's likely that modern civilization will go through a serious consolidation phase before a new culture with new people arises. I just hope it won't be this fanatic abrahamic Revelation cult although right now they seem the only people still producing offspring at a replacement rate. Or higher. Not comforting if you ask me.

      Right, the current trend is that the world is rapidly becoming increasingly Muslim:

      https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infogr... [statcdn.com]

      That said, extrapolation is a risky business. Cle

  • Lots of Japanese people are coming to Canada on work holiday visas and then stay once they realize the pay is better, less work hours and no forced free overtime(it's easy to get permanent residence). Lots of Japanese women (probably 4 or 5 to 1 compared to Japanese men). I wonder how long before Japan turns north Korean and cancels work holiday agreements with Canada to stop Japanese from leaving.

  • We were overpopulated 55 years ago, but now . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @02:54PM (#64122341)

    It's not just Japan, the underpopulation crises is hitting many nations. It is even used as an excuse to flood nations with immigrants who have values antithetical to those of the current population.

    When the popular book "The Population Bomb" came out, over 55 years ago, the world population was about 3.5 billion and we were way overpopulated. Now the world population is about 8 billion and we are underpopulated. Care to do the math?

    I am old enough to remember public service commercials that had messages like: "the easiest way to fight the population crises, is to have smaller families." It was about that time that China started their "one child per family" policy.

    It's my understanding that, before 1945, Japan was desperate to acquire new territories because they believed their island nation to be overpopulated. I wonder what Japan's population was then, as compared to today?

  • My friend Ripley says that one possible solution is —and hear me out— to take off and nuke the planet from orbit.

  • Education (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday January 01, 2024 @02:58PM (#64122353)

    I think a big issue is education. People like some sequenced structure in their lives. First you finish your education, then you establish your career, then you get married, then you have kids.

    When people only got a high school degree you stepped right out into a career, and then it was natural to get married in your early twenties and start having kids by your mid-twenties.

    Undergraduate education pushes that back 4 years and grad school 2-8 years. A lot of folks aren't really settled until their early to mid thirties. For men they're kinda settled at the idea of just a couple kids (replacement level) at that point. For women, they're starting to run into fertility issues.

    There's two ways to get around this:

    1) Stop educating women (and some men). The fundies loves this but most others don't.

    2) Find ways to make it easier for women to have children before they're finished their education.

    #2 is one of the big reasons that the taboos against out-of-wedlock children have declined, because people recognize that it might be one of the only ways for many folks to have children.

  • Every time one of these stories lands on Slashdot, the comments section is filled with people convinced that the crux of the issue is due to how expensive it is to have children. And while there's no doubt that having a child is one of the most expensive commitments most people will ever make, the reality is that it's far from the main reasons why people aren't reproducing. Just read articles like this [vox.com] (focus on the facts and ignore the ridiculous speculations in the article) to understand that countries

    • ... major changes in social norms ...

      For half of people, a full-time job won't provide a house: That's the first disincentive to wanting a family. Next is massive urbanization and long work-days: These are not new but young people are waiting until their living conditions improve, before starting a family.

      Young women no longer talk about having a family: That's feminism and prioritizing their career. Plus, they see a culture where children require much more supervision while there is also less time for child-rearing because both parents

  • It is about consumption. It isn't about income, it definitely isn't about wealth. It is all about how much material goods and services we allow young people to consume. And boy do we ever screw over young families. If you want to have a large family you have to start young. Babies are hard, no sleep, no idea what you are doing, no time to figure things out. But we have created an artificial filter to starting a career by requiring a bachelors degree to just get past HR. Next we don't build enough housin

  • It's one of those things that seemed like a good idea at the time, I guess.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close