They had a terrible 20 year economic hangover due to a massive bubble poorly handled, and that definitely had massive negative social spillover effects. But over the past 15 years social surveys have shown increasing (and solidly net positive) happiness and satisfaction with the quality of life across all demographic groups except the extremely old. Notably, over the past decade Japanese life satisfaction levels are higher than the same surveys show in North America and Europe.
An economic system that depends on a pyramid model is ultimately unsustainable. I don't mean in the "there's a population bomb problem the planet's going to die unless we do something!" sense -- I don't in fact agree with that. But there's no reason why the system can't and ought not achieve balance.
The downside of "the way of Japan" is that they'll shortly have no one to pay for all the old people. Keeping old people alive is expensive.
In the US young people pay old people's social security income. You see how many people are talking about the aging baby boomers right? Imagine that but much worse.
I'll go out on a limb and say you're being downvoted because it's not actually "the best decision a person can make for the planet/sustainability". It's not even a good decision, really.
> Otherwise 1 kid per parent (on average) is what is sustainable.
Says who? People are responsible for climate change. I mean have a kid if you want to and think it'll be fun or whatever, but the idea that it's "sustainable" decision is a joke.
Well, if you want to work till death then be my guest.
If you believe that society should somehow support their old then I think that one should provide at least one replacement.
If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so?
If you think that you will be supported by riches you collect during your life time then keep in mind that riches are imaginary.
If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable?
Edit: I think that it is sustainable to have 1 child per parent. It will keep the population constant. What is not sustainable is to have more than 1 per parent. If we could convince the majority of the world to follow this then the prospects will be much better than today.
What I consider a joke is a belief that if you die out next to the society with very high fertility then it somehow helps the planet. It does not make a dent.
How does forcing kids to care for dying parents have any impact on the sustainability/environmental impact of having kids.
> If you expect that somebodies else children should support you then I question your sanity. Why should they choose to do so?
Why are you so sure your own kids would choose to do so? Aren't you making a hundred-thousand-dollar-plus child-rearing bet that they'll feel guilty enough to care for you? Why not just spend that money on a paid caretaker?
> If you will have no children but 10 others will have 10 children (each) then which genes will prevail? Sustainable or not sustainable?
Just because other people are making a bad decision doesn't mean you have to make it, too.
They had a terrible 20 year economic hangover due to a massive bubble poorly handled, and that definitely had massive negative social spillover effects. But over the past 15 years social surveys have shown increasing (and solidly net positive) happiness and satisfaction with the quality of life across all demographic groups except the extremely old. Notably, over the past decade Japanese life satisfaction levels are higher than the same surveys show in North America and Europe.
An economic system that depends on a pyramid model is ultimately unsustainable. I don't mean in the "there's a population bomb problem the planet's going to die unless we do something!" sense -- I don't in fact agree with that. But there's no reason why the system can't and ought not achieve balance.