- cross-posted to:
- thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
A lower population is not a crisis, depopulation is not a concern. But the fact that people can’t afford and don’t have the time for a family, that is a crisis.
Depopulation is not a concern for us if it happens in imperialist countries and their vassals, but it is a concern in anti-imperialist countries. In order to defend yourself from imperialist invasion you need people to work in industries and young people to fight. We are entering into an era where big wars are becoming common again as the international capitalist-imperialist system is going into a crisis from which it cannot recover without conquering new captive markets and new sources of raw materials. The “West” is falling further and further behind technologically and industrially, and it is desperate for a way to halt and reverse that trend. If it cannot do that the empire is going to seek to “reset” the playing field by destroying the world’s productive capacities with a global war.
In the face of such existential threats anti-imperialist countries need to develop not just a broad military-technical base but also a manpower base sufficient to survive the total war that the empire is going to launch against them. Attritional-industrial wars are won by the side with the most weapons and the most soldiers, and if we do not want to be on the losing side we better make sure we have enough of both. Japan or Europe losing population is a good thing as it gives the empire less proxy manpower to draw from to fight their wars. But China, Russia, Iran, etc. losing population and having demographics skewed toward the older age groups is dangerous as it reduces their ability to generate fighting strength and sustain casualties in a major war.
Ideally we would not even get to the point where such a war happens, but the only way to prevent it is to project sufficient strength (including demographic strength) that the managers of empire recognize that they have no chance of winning and would lose more than they stand to gain, that they would be the ones coming out weaker on the other side and not their adversaries. Appearing weak invites conflict, it emboldens the US to launch provocations and engineer wars if they think they can win while they have not yet completely lost the technological edge (which is only a matter of time in the long run, so they only have a limited window of opportunity to do this).
For countries with a small population I agree, but a depopulated China would still be one of the most populated countries in the world
Yes. Which is why the One-Child Policy was an acceptable trade-off. It enabled a more rapid rise out of poverty while not compromising national security. But everything has a limit and even in a country as big as China problems will eventually start to accumulate if your demographics become unbalanced (though probably only temporarily until the country adjusts to the new equilibrium, which is why i personally don’t give much credence to the doomsayers who predict some imminent demographic catastrophe for China; there will just be some challenges to solve).
Being childfree I am obviously a bit biased on the topic, but this would basically be a non issue if we didn’t have an economic system predicated on infinite growth within finite resources.
It is also exacerbated by the extreme centralization in Tokyo. I luckily got a higher paying job outside the city, but you couldn’t pay me enough to move back. Honestly we don’t need more people, and even if we did there should be opportunities to increase immigration (and not the indentured servitude type of immigration we often end up with).
I genuinely consider this a nonissue. The world shouldn’t have a bunch of unwanted children running around.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
