On the one hand, yes having a child with a higher quality of life is better than having many children.
However, there’s a good Kurzgesagt video about how the severe decline in birthrate can doom a population. Basically, if a population is not at the very least replacing itself, it will run out of young workers to keep the country going and vastly skew the proportion of elderly people to young workers. Small, rural towns will not survive since young people will flock to cities for work.
Though the video is based on Korea, the same concepts apply for Japan as well.
The logical, healthy approach to natural population growth and maintenance would be to provide social protections and supports for families and young people to grow into a society where they are encouraged and helped to start a family of one or two children in order to supply a healthy steady supply of new people for future generations.
Unfortunately, our world is governed by sociopathic wealthy overlords who demand more from people and want to give less to them. It’s not all their fault because the majority of us all sit around and just passively accept it as just a normal part of society. What that will probably mean is that in the future it will be a strange form of population control where children are no longer born but they will be manufactured and bred in order to provide a steady supply of human resources to keep the profit driven capitalist machine running for wealthy overlords.
From the look of how we managed our society in the past century … we won’t solve this problem sensibly, or with any empathy for society as a whole but rather try to deal with it from an economic and financial point of view. The wealthy owning class don’t see humanity as a whole that should be supported in any kind of healthy way … they see humanity as a source of wealth and a group of thinking individuals that can be taken advantage of to extract wealth for owners rather than for the whole of society.
“fear of decline”
also, your argument is based on the totally-nonsense assumption that there “has to be a certain number of workers to sustain the elderly” which is bullshit (frankly). it’s not about the number of workers; it’s about the productive output, and as we all know, that has risen tremendously the last few years. So there should be no shortage of workers regardless of how many workers there are. Everything else is bullshit the news (which btw are owned by billionaires) tell you because they want to sack a significant part of productive output for themselves - well ofc if rich take 90% of output it’s not gonna be enough for everyone. but that’s the rich’s fault and has nothing to do with “there not being enough workers”.
“fear of decline”
You’re not making an argument, there. You’re showing a graph that’s misleading because it starts at fucking 10000 BCE. Look at a graph of Japan if you want to talk about Japan, and of the current generations not prehistory.
it’s about the productive output, and as we all know, that has risen tremendously the last few years.
Ah, yes, because having a machine that can churn out pottery like noone’s business helps a lot with elderly and palliative care.
There is absolutely a limit how few kids a society can have before it collapses. Where that is is currently not particularly clear because the situation is unprecedented, but that there is a limit is crystal clear. 10 young people caring for 100 bed-ridden elderly and one kid, how long is that going to last, even if you automate everything else?
His graph is still valid, as the exponential growth doesn’t really matter if we start from 0 BCE or 10000 BCE.
Even if we would loose 60% of the population now, we would still be 1.5 times the population of 1900 (9miljard x 0.4=3.6 >2)
