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.

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    16 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days 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.