The number of newborns in Japan fell below 700,000 for the first time since records began in 1899. The government data released Wednesday showed a 16th straight year of decline and it's faster than had been expected.
I’m noticing a pattern here. Not just about Japanese society but many others as well.
It’s never “we want to have a child so we will”
It’s always “this is a series of rules, procedures and conditions to fulfill before you can have a child”
It should never be just “we want to have a child so we will”. That’s self centered, short sighted and irresponsible.
Anyone looking to have children should think through at the minimum:
do we have the money to raise a child?
who will be able to raise and care for them
will the child have the ability to grow and succeed in the environment we’re bringing them into?
will the above to be to the standard we would want for the child?
To bring a child into a bad environment, with no time or money to spend on the child, is to bring the child into this world setup for failure and would only put a drain on the system, the resources, the climate, the relatives, etc.
People are choosing (in Japan and elsewhere around the world) to not have children because of the less than favorable conditions outlined above, and many others.
As a resident of a developing country, having spent time observing different socio-economic classes and lurked in my country’s subreddit, I noticed that the most vocal opponents of natalism are mostly from the younger upper-middle class due to those aforementioned issues plus the fear of losing the ability for self-fulfillment (they would rather choose having a better career and/or excel in their interests/passion projects than traditional domesticity which they see as boring, stressful, and mundane). Unfortunately, some of them also happen to harbor a disdain towards the lower classes they see as “less civilized”, a strain on resources, and purportedly reproduce more than necessary.
That’s true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn’t care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.
Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.
But if you’re in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.
All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don’t know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.
I’m noticing a pattern here. Not just about Japanese society but many others as well.
It’s never “we want to have a child so we will”
It’s always “this is a series of rules, procedures and conditions to fulfill before you can have a child”
It should never be just “we want to have a child so we will”. That’s self centered, short sighted and irresponsible.
Anyone looking to have children should think through at the minimum:
To bring a child into a bad environment, with no time or money to spend on the child, is to bring the child into this world setup for failure and would only put a drain on the system, the resources, the climate, the relatives, etc.
People are choosing (in Japan and elsewhere around the world) to not have children because of the less than favorable conditions outlined above, and many others.
As a resident of a developing country, having spent time observing different socio-economic classes and lurked in my country’s subreddit, I noticed that the most vocal opponents of natalism are mostly from the younger upper-middle class due to those aforementioned issues plus the fear of losing the ability for self-fulfillment (they would rather choose having a better career and/or excel in their interests/passion projects than traditional domesticity which they see as boring, stressful, and mundane). Unfortunately, some of them also happen to harbor a disdain towards the lower classes they see as “less civilized”, a strain on resources, and purportedly reproduce more than necessary.
Govts around the world think like prolifers, they only want them to be born but have no idea or even care how they will grow up.
That’s true. My argument is that before, when people had more children, they didn’t care about bringing them into a bad world. Even 100 years ago it was expected some of your children will die.
Now, children dying is not a nice thing. Luckily we solved it and these days if you behave like our ancestors you will have too many children for society to be sustainable.
But if you’re in a situation where there are too few children for a sustainable society, encouraging risk would help.
All being said, I actually believe we need to reduce the human population. But we don’t know how to handle a sudden decline, or if we can level it out later. So a gradual decrease would be preferable.
Who is saying the second quote? The government?
They made it up.
Right but I’m trying to understand what exactly it is they made up. Who is the hypothetical speaker here?
How did you notice that pattern? It seems none of the rest of us have ever heard of that before…lol