[rayiner]

I don’t know anything about Switzerland, but immigration isn’t a solution to the prospect of Japan “not having a country left in a few generations.” There might be more or fewer people living on the islands, but “Japan” will be gone either way.

[felipeerias]

Nowadays Japan’s fertility rate is higher than most of its neighbours. We are just used to pick it as an example because it started aging earlier than most other countries.

Japanese population is still over 120 million. Forecasts put it falling below 100 million at some point in the second half of this century.

Things will have to change in order to keep population stable in the long term, but the Japanese approach seems IMHO more sensible than that of other countries.

Cohesive democratic societies are fragile.

[Starman_Jones]

I can’t parse this statement. I’m not sure if this about culture changes or about climate threat.

[platinumrad]

How do you define "Japan"?

[rayiner]

The standard way. The same way you define “Thailand” or “Bangladesh” or “Vietnam?”

[platinumrad]

It seems like "Japan" will very much still exist in either of your scenarios then.

[throwawaypath]

The nation state located on the islands of Japan populated with almost exclusively Japanese people.

[platinumrad]

Good news then: it's still going to be there in a hundred years!

[throwawaypath]

It won't be "Japan" if they start importing immigrants by the tens of millions.

[red-iron-pine]

they're islands mon ami, it's not hard to define them -- the borders are fairly straightforward

you can piddle around about a few tiny islands elsewhere, e.g. okinawa, but the main islands are undisputedly "japan"

[platinumrad]

Sounds like it will still exist then, barring climate catastrophe.