Japan Today
lifestyle

Many countries, including China and Japan, grappling with shrinking and aging populations

79 Comments
By KEN MORITSUGU

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.


79 Comments
Login to comment

Should be titled "grappling with the consequences of their no immigration policies".

-18 ( +10 / -28 )

The population of 1.4 billion people — still more than 10 times that of Japan — is projected to fall to 1.3 billion by 2050.

I'm sure they'll cope with that many.

-4 ( +11 / -15 )

Change the conditions set out in the article and we will see more children.

Surveys show that younger Japanese are increasingly reluctant to marry or have children, discouraged by bleak job prospects, a cost of living that is rising at a faster pace than salaries and a corporate culture difficult for women and working mothers.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Change the conditions set out in the article and we will see more children.

This is true throughout the developed world. Even in the US the demands of the workplace, the frequent necessity to work a part time job on top of a full time one due to high housing and child care costs leaves many with no energy, time or interest in raising a family. There aren't a lot of careers left that give workers time for a family. Employers across the board expect, even demand, employees prioritize their business over their own families.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Or maybe people are taking a look at the general state of the world and thinking "yeah, no thanks".

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Endless population growth is not the best model for the world, despite what most governmentsand many economists demand. Bad for the environment, bad for distribution of resources and bad for things like housing etc.

Japan can show the world that lower populations can be a good thing. Cleaner air, more free space for all, better job and education opportunities.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Or maybe people are taking a look at the general state of the world and thinking "yeah, no thanks".

But not in developing countries, where birthrates remain high.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

The population of 1.4 billion people — still more than 10 times that of Japan — is projected to fall to 1.3 billion by 2050.

I'm sure they'll cope with that many.

Quite possibly not. Because of the one child policy, they are going to end up with an inverted population pyramid with far more older, retired people than people of working age.

The oldest children of the one child policy are already in their mid-40s and would likely only have had one child themselves. The policy has been relaxed, but it will time until the population returns to normal.

China will most likely need millions of immigrants to care for its elderly and will likely be the destination of choice for nurses from the Philippines.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Only Western countries see mass immigration as a solution to declining populations and falling birthrates ("replacement immigration"), while the rest of the world doesn't. I wonder why there are two markedly different approaches to the same problem.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  06:43 am JST

Should be titled "grappling with the consequences of their no immigration policies"

I don’t know where you live, but I can tell you that in Tokyo, immigration is massive. It becomes very obvious when you look at low-paid service-related jobs like convenience stores, restaurants, and hotels—it’s a complete change of landscape compared to 10 years ago.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Endless population growth is not the best model for the world

There is no requirement for endless population growth to solve the shrinking and aging problems, a relatively stable population with enough people being economically productive to shoulder the social costs is good enough.

Of course the problem is that this requires families to be able to afford the "luxury" of having children, which requires deep changes to the way things are being run right now. Not likely to happen since it would hurt a lot the pockets of those that hold the most political and economic power.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

This isn't exactly news. It's been an issue for years.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

TaiwanIsNotChinaToday  06:43 am JST

Should be titled "grappling with the consequences of their no immigration policies".

Uh, no. It should be "grappling with the consequence of not having as many children as previous generations did."

And none of this "it's too expensive to have kids" nonsense. In previous generations, many people were poorer -- noticeably poorer -- than we are today. But they still had multiple children.

Immediately chalking this up to an immigration-policy problem is superficial thinking at best -- and seizing upon a problem to push an agenda at worst.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

in Tokyo, immigration is massive. 

The vast majority are temporary workers, who will be required to return home and not come back after their short-term visa extensions run out (unless they marry a Japanese national).

This is not the common defination of "immigration," ie, entailing a straighforward path to citizenship, family reunion and dual/multiple citizens, as practiced by Western countries.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Low salaries, cost of living. People are not stupid.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

It's of course all over, because nowadays already the very first steps are nearly completely forbidden. Still far away from dating, marriage, having children, but simply try to say to an attractive girl or woman you see, that she is beautiful, attractive, maybe your type and let's go to a cafeteria and talk a bit. You will be astonishingly surprised what immediately happens to you, finding yourself inside the next free prison cell for weeks or months.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Companies and governments have always tried to squeeze the most out of the working class people, so low salaries and hard working conditions are not really new things for most of the population. I think it's more that people don't want children as much as in the past, which is sad.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

At the same time we are talking about countries within the top 20 most number of people. I never understood the concept of pushing for more people. Yes, you have the pension problem etc. But surely you are just exacerbating the problem for a future generation. Politicians globally are just too lazy to deal with it. It’s easier to continue chucking money and resources at increasing population or blaming immigration. It suits their narrative rather than building an actual feasible future for their people.

I don’t have an answer for the problem either but piling on the problem rather than solving it doesn’t make sense. More people consumes more resources, and there is more friction and competition. What is good about that for a peaceful collaborative world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That's what happens when society puts money and progress first over sustainability, people become too tired and discouraged to have their own family. I'm a single millennial and in this economy, I'm choosing not to have a kid because I can't afford it and I can't ensure a good future for them.

We should be aware that when people problematize the shrinking population idea, they mostly concern themselves about the economy. It's not bad, but they're missing the point. They shouldn't count on the population to constantly grow just so they can keep those charts pointing upwards like they're some financial investment.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Rakuraku - you are correct that there has been a big change in the service/hospitality industry where 1,000s of foreigners are now working compared to a few years ago. Even so in my smaller city.

But this is primarily not as a result of a govt immigration policy, but more so because of the increase in the number of short term work/trainee/study visas.

The figure of 3+million foreign residents as quoted in the article also is a bit misleading. Anyone here for over 3 months is included in these statistics - even if on a short term visa.

Chinese and S Koreans make up 40+% of the total, many who are long term residents and born in Japan. Vietnamese push this % up to 60%. So by far the majority of the 3% are East Asian who appear to assimilate quite readily into the national demographic.

So with a foreign registered population of around 3% - incl Japanese born and short-termers - their number is still miniscule compared to 97% ethnic Japanese.

A considered managed increase in immigration will alleviate some of the problems affecting Japan in the next 50 years without impacting negatively on the country as some are worried about.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

An OLD and Broken record that keeps on getting played while the answer is sitting in their faces.

When you make having a child a complicated task for the youngsters the alternative is to NOT having one.

When it costs youngsters an arm and leg to just get married or even find a place to live and before even thinking about having a child they just GET TURNED OFF.

And the answer is much simpler than what so called social experts think or predict, ""Keep It Simple Stupid"".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Another article on the ageing population phenomenon?

Quelle surprise!

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

This isn't exactly news. 

It isn't exactly a problem either

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Chinese and S Koreans make up 40+% of the total, many who are long term residents and born in Japan. Vietnamese push this % up to 60%. So by far the majority of the 3% are East Asian who appear to assimilate quite readily into the national demographic.

I think many are yet to be convinced that Vietnamese, for one, "assimilate quite readily into the national demographic." Not sure about your basis for that argument.

Just yesterday there was an article about the dire need for translators for groups such as Vietnamese when they run into legal problems.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

An Old and Broken Record that just keeps on getting played while the answer is sitting in everyone face. ""Keep It Simple Stupid"".

When is costs young lovers an arm and leg to just say I DO, then another arm and leg to find a place to start a family, then have to deal with all the complicated rules and regulations imposed by the TAX collectors and others city and prefecture regulations, it become clear to them that it is just better to just go it without having kids.

In my life span I have traveled to several countries where I saw children as young as 3 and 5 years old running free in the aisles of the Philippines, the streets of Thailand, India, Cambodia, Egypt, even in China southern parts unrestricted, and unbothered, were kids are just being kids.

I watch kids here in Japan and I feel so sorry sometimes because kids just can't be kids, can't do this or that is everywhere, rules imposed everywhere, signs, teachers, and community watch Dogs watching them every step of the way.

It becomes a burden on the parents to even have a kid.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It isn't exactly a problem either

If nothing is done, negative consequences would follow? then it is a problem.

The part where you get confused is thinking that if the solution proposed is not of your liking then the situation is not a problem.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Well maybe if we stop stigmatizing teenage mothers in the media, maybe we stop stigmatizing single mothers, stop stigmatizing absent fathers, how about making the roll of a parent being seen in the media as just as fulfilling as a career, seen as valuable to society,(and to the country as future tax payers, consumers, and not just “workers”), and not just a cost to the tax payer. Maybe, just maybe, some people will have kids. I personally doubt it cause the tabloids love to find someone to blame for the social problems of society. And some people will still complain about their taxes and paying some to have kids. And if the government see helping people to have a family as a “burden” then for some people they will also see having a couple of kids as a “burden”.

for any reverse it’ll take 20,30,40 years. But I think society places more on a women working, having one kid, and paying tax now. But if you want her to have 2 or 3 kids the gov will have to wait until those kids become adults to see any return on their “policy” or shall I say “investment”.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

MckluskieToday  09:36 am JST

This isn't exactly news. 

It isn't exactly a problem either

oh it is when doctors retire, nurses retire, teachers retire, truck drivers have to stop working, construction workers get too old to do heavy work. Not enough youngsters to fill all those now empty roles and take care of old mum and dad at the same time. Then there is the tax revenue, fewer babies means less workers meaning less tax payers meaning less consumers, paying consumer tax. Then there are the small villages, and the people who need care, the young will leave emptying even faster. And the. Who will do the farming as the countryside greys, getting older, and sicker. Who will grow those apples? The rice? Make the sake? There is more to this than, oh there’ll be less traffic in the country side, but it’ll still increase in the cities, that’ll suck any young people in for jobs, and careers, and dating. If all the old people live in the countryside who wants to be a teenager and not meet some friends or a partner.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

J Lee - good points again. But I agree with posters who say this isn’t exactly news - and certainly not news to merit such high ranking on the front page

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Who will do the farming as the countryside greys, getting older, and sicker. Who will grow those apples? The rice? Make the sake?

@ Abe234 - AI, robots and drones will be online for when that happens. Most jobs will be automated by then.

Endless population growth - and immigration, as some are suggesting - is not the answer. The West is not necessarily correct in their policies regarding these.

Just my opinion.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

If nothing is done, negative consequences would follow? 

The problem isn't in the number of people, it's in adjusting to a new economy in which 50% of current jobs will have been rendered obsolete within the next 2 decades or less. Fewer people means, fewer people to share the already limited amount of resources Japan has...particularily food. Fewer people is a good thing. The problem is only in how to best prepare and adjust in terms of the downsizing necessary to facilitate society in the coming decades when half of current jobs will have disappeared due to AI and mass automation. The cost of caring for the elderly, who no longer contribute to the public coffers can be mitigated by various means, such as zero taxation (including consumption tax on everything including food), free rent (plenty of empty homes and apartments with the shrinking population), free transportation (all railways and public transit pass)...and UBI (with printed money for that ends only...so as to have little effect on inflation). The problem is not having fewer people. Not on an archipelago roughly the size of California, 80% of which is non-arable land with an already bloated population of 125 million and which is only at about 35% in terms of food self-sufficiency.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

oh it is when doctors retire, nurses retire, teachers retire, truck drivers have to stop working, construction workers get too old to do heavy work

When those doctors, nurses etc. retire...there will be far fewer patients. When those truck drivers retire they'll be replaced with automated trucks, much of construction will be automated too. All forecasts point to 50% of current jobs being rendered obsolete within the next 2 decades...or less.

More people in such an age...means more unemployed...so you'd have double the strain on the public coffers...the elderly and the vastly increased unemployed

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The problem isn't in the number of people

Your original claim was not that "this" was not a problem, your origican claim was literally "It isn't exactly a problem either" It was very easy to demonstrate it is a problem. That you think adjusting the economy is the solution only makes it clear you yourself think there is a problem after all, you just disagree with the way it should be solved.

The problem is not having fewer people

The problem is having fewer people without doing anything about it, if there was "no problem" as you mischaracterized there would be no need to do anything about it, no adjust on the economy would be necessary and things would be not worse for it.

When those doctors, nurses etc. retire...there will be far fewer patients

Because everybody (including those retired doctors and nurses) become suddenly immune to any health problem? or are you suggesting they should be disposed off so the need is immediately adjusted to the lack of offer of medical services?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

 you just disagree with the way it should be solved.

OK...the problem is not fewer people, but fewer jobs...due to AI and mass automation...the problem for which is not more people

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

oops! *the solution for which is not more people

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

OK...the problem is not fewer people, but fewer jobs...

Again, this is a contradiction of your original point which was that there is no problem to solve, you are giving solutions to something you said was not a problem.

This means now you accept there is a problem, that you want to solve by pretending people stops using services as soon as there is nobody to offer them.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Again, this is a contradiction of your original point which was that there is no problem to solve, you are giving solutions to something you said was not a problem.

I've conceded as much. The problem is not fewer people, but fewer jobs for which the solution is not more people.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@browny1

A considered managed increase in immigration will alleviate some of the problems affecting Japan in the next 50 years without impacting negatively on the country as some are worried about.

.

More immigration has been suggested by some trusted and influential higher ups in Japan which has not been explained to the general population, yet-it is coming.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I've conceded as much. The problem is not fewer people, but fewer jobs for which the solution is not more people.

The solution of pretending fewer jobs will magically become unnecessary (both for those that want those jobs and those that want the services provided) as soon as they are reduced is not a solution either.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

 pretending fewer jobs will magically become unnecessary

WTF?

Can someone please untangle this pretzle logic. Thanks

Half of current jobs will have been replaced by AI or mass-automation within the next 2 decades or less.

What does "fewer jobs will beome unnecassary mean" in this context. The fact is fewer workers will BE necessary due to their jobs being rendered obsolete.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

WTF?

Can someone please untangle this pretzle logic. Thanks

Comedy gold.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sven AsaiToday 09:21 am JST

It's of course all over, because nowadays already the very first steps are nearly completely forbidden. Still far away from dating, marriage, having children, but simply try to say to an attractive girl or woman you see, that she is beautiful, attractive, maybe your type and let's go to a cafeteria and talk a bit. You will be astonishingly surprised what immediately happens to you, finding yourself inside the next free prison cell for weeks or months.

This is a bit exaggerated, but there is also some truth in it. In Japan it was not unusual, that a man found his wife in the same company where both were working, a male customer visiting a department store found his wife who was there a saleslady, further many females were into gossip and eager to introduce another woman they knew to men who were still single....

Today sadly, it is not so easy anymore for men to approach women and some women are already complaining that men are ignoring them, the dating scene is really broken and very risky for men as you never know how the woman you ask out for a private conversation is reacting. If you try it with a female working in the same company and she rejects you, you might be out of job the same day at the worst or become a target of scorn for every man and woman around you at the workplace.

No surprise that many young men - especially those with a low income and no support by their parents - and also here in Japan just gave up dating - they prefer to stay alone, renting a small room, looking movies, playing computer games...

If a country shows up with declining birth rates, it has to do something to bring young men and women together and not to separate them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Non-Muslim South Asia also has the same problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

WTF?

Can someone please untangle this pretzle logic. Thanks

Half of current jobs will have been replaced by AI or mass-automation within the next 2 decades or less.

What does "fewer jobs will beome unnecassary mean" in this context. The fact is fewer workers will BE necessary due to their jobs being rendered obsolete.

it will probably not happen within 2 decades but at a 7 to 10 years horizon. Chat gpt 4 already has an is between, the paying version gpt 4.0 of 130 to 150. The enterprise version 155+. Einstein QI was estimated between 160 and 180.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

it will probably not happen within 2 decades but at a 7 to 10 years horizon.

7 to 10 years is "within the next 2 decades"

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Its a shame its taken fifteen years, but we have finally got to the point where a low birthrate is not seen as an exclusively Japanese problem. This misconception was used for years to single out people in Japan and condescend to and mock them. The Western media is guilty of millions of column inches about Japanese men liking anime or sex robots. As undeniable proof of Japanese male inadequacy, the articles would always mention that book by that Japanese woman about "herbivore men". Well, here we are in 2025 and birth rates have crashed everywhere. The whole world must be full of herbivore men.

Abe234 accurately describes why this is a problem. The English language could do with one, but Japanese has a word for this. It is "kasoka", basically "depopulation-driven decline".

人口の急激な減少により、地域住民の生活水準や生産機能が一定のレベルを維持できなくなった状態を「過疎」、その状態が進行していることを「過疎化」といいます。

This word is often poorly translated and it should be noted that it does not mean "depopulation" as in more seats on the train. It does not mean "decline", as in jobs going overseas and your factories lying idle. It means decline specifically caused by a lack of people. "This place (to-own) is coming like a ghost town" simply because everyone has left or has retired. This decimates communities.

With every other country in the world trying to import skilled workers, it is fanciful to think Japan can just click its fingers, ease the visa restrictions and watch them flood into the airports. Such people can pick and choose where they go. Every other depopulating country wants them. Half of the ones coming here will quickly realize they could be making more money running an Airbnb in Kyoto than driving a truck, looking after old people, or any other job Japanese don't want to do.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

WTF?

Can someone please untangle this pretzle logic

That is your logic, when people argued to you that doctors, nurses, etc would retire your answer was that magically people would stop needing them, even if they (including the retired doctors and nurses) still had decades of life. The whole point is that is your logic the one that is obviously mistken.

What does "fewer jobs will beome unnecassary mean" in this context. The fact is fewer workers will BE necessary due to their jobs being rendered obsolete.

Yet they would still need jobs (for which you offer no solution) for much longer than just two decades) and that this mass-automation is not even close to be applicable in general, specially on health care. No prediction says this will happen, yet the availability of people working in fields like this will decrease importantly even if the demand will remain the same if not increase.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

With every other country in the world trying to import skilled workers, it is fanciful to think Japan can just click its fingers, ease the visa restrictions and watch them flood into the airports. Such people can pick and choose where they go. Every other depopulating country wants them. Half of the ones coming here will quickly realize they could be making more money running an Airbnb in Kyoto than driving a truck, looking after old people, or any other job Japanese don't want to do.

kohakuebisu- That's a very good point

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

 that this mass-automation is not even close to be applicable in general, specially on health care. No prediction says this will happen, yet the availability of people working in fields like this will decrease importantly even if the demand will remain the same if not increase.

Japan is already transitioning into a ditial healhcare provider. Mobile diagnostic vans are already in service in some remote areas. Not only diagnostics nor administration, but also in things like surgery AI will be applied more and more. Imaging that ascertains where the cancer is, for example, will be directing robotic tools such as the "hinotori" to perform the necessary surgery, thus reducing the burden on surgeons and increasing precision and safety. It also enables remote operations. It also reduces the number of staff needed at a single hospital, as one doctor could work remotely at several hospitals. This is just one example of how fewer medical staff will be needed in the near future (hinotori is already in use).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

as one doctor could work remotely at several hospitals.

Initially, as that one doctor will likely be replaced by AI that can identify the task, do the diagnostics necessary and perform the surgery...remotely.

We are now at the cusp of an era in which technological advancements are going to occur at a far greater rate than previously due to the advancement of AI as an engine of inquiry which in turn will affect actual applications of technologies...such as the ones previously mentioned vis a vis healthcare.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Geeter MckluskieToday  02:33 pm JST

it will probably not happen within 2 decades but at a 7 to 10 years horizon.

*7 to 10 years is "within the next 2 decades.*

Sorry, I meant to say that it will probably happen within 7 to 10 years. At least, it will be technically feasible, but in practice, governments will try to slow things down since society cannot adapt so quickly to such disruptive technologies.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sorry, I meant to say that it will probably happen within 7 to 10 years. At least, it will be technically feasible, but in practice, governments will try to slow things down since society cannot adapt so quickly to such disruptive technologies.

I agree. I wrote 20 years as a long-term prediction, as there will be those on here who will vehemently argue that is "Chicken Little" type alarm sounding. The fact is technological progress will happen far greater than originally forecasted due to technologies in AI exponentially driving them.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The "hinotori"

https://www.medicaroid.com/product/hinotori/

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

LOL on what planet is 'caring for the elderly going to be mitigated by zero taxation, free rent, free transportation' and other freebies. Not happening anywhere in this solar system and def not on planet earth in Japan. Increasing elderly cost a society more, not less especially as their productive days are well behind them in terms of contributing to the economy, even in Japan where some elderly are still doing hard work like farming.

You can't run a developed, contemporary society like that especially when a declining population means a fall in key areas such as education, for example - the shuttered schools in many regions of Japan and loss of opportunities for teachers and everbody else who earns their living in education. This flows on to affecting post secondary education with fewer colleges/universities and lowering of entry standards for those that are finding it hard to compete with the prestigious ones.

As for the happy happy vision of the economy becoming automated - some of it's happened already but the limitations of robotics are well known for more sophisticated purposes, The medical system can try to limit staff like nurses and doctors but patient care will always be trusted when humans are involved to a big extent. As for trucking becoming automated, yeah, self driving vehicles have proved to be a massive success, haven't they? Which is why their use is very limited and despite improvemens in the future will still be limited.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

LOL on what planet is 'caring for the elderly going to be mitigated by zero taxation, free rent, free transportation' and other freebies.

It very well could be.

It's a better solution than relying on population expansion on an archipelago with limited resources and which is currently only 35% in self-sufficiency in terms of food production. Also, considering the fact that 50% of current jobs will have been rendered obsolete by AI and mass-automation within the next 20 years, expanding the current population to solve the ageing demographic phenomenon would only serve to exacerbate the strain on the public coffers as there would be even more people on the public dole as a result.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan is already transitioning into a ditial healhcare provider

And you think this in any way reduce the need for healthcare workers? how do you think a digital hospitalization work? a digital nurse to take samples? You are willingly trying to make a false equivalence between giving doctors a tool to reach people and pretending the tool can replace the doctors, that is obviously not valid.

There is zero realistic use of AI in surgery for the foreseeable future, nor will AI prepare the operating room, clean up and deliver the surgical instruments, put the patient under anesthesia, bring him back to his room, explain things to the family, etc. etc. etc.

Once again your are misrepresenting tools that will allow single tasks to be done more efficiently with replacing a professional that have to do dozens of such tasks continuously to perform a job.

Initially, as that one doctor will likely be replaced by AI that can identify the task, do the diagnostics necessary and perform the surgery...remotely.

That is as believable as Musk when he promised full autonomous cars in any situation in less than a year, in 2015...

Currently AI is not even able to make diagnosis except on crystal clear, textbook like, no unexpected variables, cases. Pretending it will be able to fully replace a doctor in the foreseeable future is beyond believable, have you bought a bridge maybe?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

declining population means a fall in key areas such as education, for example - the shuttered schools in many regions of Japan and loss of opportunities for teachers and everbody else who earns their living in education.

Fewer students means fewer teachers needed.

Also, AI will result in more efficient classes (it already has actually) like those regarding foreign language acquisition, for example, as students will be able to pair up with AI partners for conversations. Soon, only homeroom teachers will be required (who will essentially be babysitters), as all lessons will be conducted by AI which has the entirety of human knowledge at its disposal while many current teachers have difficulty explaining the subjunctive mood in their native language let alone a foreign one, for example. Smaller class sizes with more efficient and better applicable pedagogy via AI is on the way...and in some cases already here, as in the 2nd language acquisition example.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

That is as believable as Musk when he promised full autonomous cars in any situation in less than a year, in 2015...

I'm sure when Brookhaven National Laboratory came out with the predecessor to "Pong" people never envisioned what video games would become, or when the Wright brothers had their maiden flight of 120 ft, people would have mocked at commercial transoceanic flights of more than 300 passengers with movies and hot meals served, let alone sending people to space and back. That was in 1903...technology is advancing at a far greater rate now. It's growing at a far greater rate than it did 10 years ago. The "hinotori" will soon look like "pong" does to us now in a few short years...and it will be ubiquitous.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

There is zero realistic use of AI in surgery for the foreseeable

futurehttps://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/shows/2050138/

Robotics are already being used in surgery in Japan.

"The surgeon showed it is possible to operate remotely" AI facilitates this

nor will AI prepare the operating room, clean up and deliver the surgical instruments, put the patient under anesthesia, bring him back to his room, explain things to the family, etc. etc. etc.

Do you imagine AI can't explain things to people? Come on, guy

"clean up and deliver surgical instruments"...why not?

"put the patient under anesthesia"...good thing the entire population won't become extinct and that there will still be 50% of current jobs remaining for those who are desperately in need of work, eh?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

in the case of Japan, handful social strongs such as ruling parties or large corporations expropriate immense wealth such as largest ever tax revenue, they only spend their left overs to social security.

It necessarily causes expansion of poverty or inequality and increasing victim of kleptocracy.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

As for trucking becoming automated, yeah, self driving vehicles have proved to be a massive success, haven't they?

A tad more successful than airplanes when first invented.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

how do you think a digital hospitalization work? 

In various ways, including the facilitation of burgeoning AI technologies that will be used in conjunction with advancements in robotics...such as the example already given, futurehttps://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/shows/2050138/

which gets down-voted, not because it's incorrect, but because it illustrates my point as being accurate...and this frustrates those who don't like my contrarian attitude.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Not a problem at all, just keep on making ROBOT'S.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There has yet to be a robot that can change a person's clothes or diaper.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Fewer students means fewer teachers needed.

But not fewer people in need of work, nor fewer retirees in need of economic activity to produce what they will keep consuming. You keep trying to say that decades worth of imbalance would have no importance, but never explain how, just claiming that people not working and not producing would mean no problem, that is just irrational.

I'm sure when Brookhaven National Laboratory came out with the predecessor to "Pong" people never envisioned what video games would become,

And for each example there are 100 that failed, with people thinking that "game changers" like electrified water, blimps or solid tires, each promoted as the next revolution by the developers and here we are, decades later and no change thanks to them.

"The surgeon showed it is possible to operate remotely" AI facilitates this

So you just proved yourself the surgeon is still necessary, even when real world conditions are not yet part of the operation. You contradict your own claim.

Do you imagine AI can't explain things to people?

Do everything, including explaining why the patient died. Probably you would like AI instead of any healthcare professional reciting excuses for anything wrong that happened to a member of your family, most people would not find that acceptable.

put the patient under anesthesia"...good thing the entire population won't become extinct and that there will still be 50% of current jobs remaining for those who are desperately in need of work, eh?

You still are trying to dodge the fact that the people doing those jobs will be the first ones that will not be there, and the people that need those jobs will still have decades to deal with the shortage until they themselves die so things can balance. Trying to dismiss the problem because you have no solution is not acceptable, it is just persisting in a mistake after it was proved a mistake.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

TaiwanIsNotChina

Should be titled "grappling with the consequences of their no immigration policies".

Simple talking point, but wrong. Immigration does not solve the birth rate problem; it just adds people on the top and makes the demographic tree worse in the longer term. Plus it by definition changes the nature of the country.

One major issue producing the birthrate collapse is feminism. Hypergyny is a real human condition, and the statistics prove it.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

One major issue producing the birthrate collapse is feminism. Hypergyny is a real human condition, and the statistics prove it.

Which statistics? Do they eliminate the much more obvious causes like important reduction of economic stability, all members of a family needing to work full time, impossibly high prices for houses, etc. etc.?

Also, do this statistics blindly assume that reduced human rights for women are justified because then they can be forced to have more children, or are they included in a proper discussion of the actual causes?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

virusrex

Which statistics? Do they eliminate the much more obvious causes like important reduction of economic stability, all members of a family needing to work full time, impossibly high prices for houses, etc. etc.?

You completely miss what I was addressing. No surprise, sadly. Look up hypergyny.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

You completely miss what I was addressing. No surprise, sadly. Look up hypergyny.

You still presented zero statistics, according to this you are recognizing you made a baseless claim and feminism or hypergyny is not an adequate explanation for shrinking/aging populations.

I looked up everything, no evidence of your claim either, so it can be ignored without problems.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The global population is still rising, right? So what? There is no incentive for young people to have kids anymore. I doubt any of those countries will go extinct anytime soon, and even if they do, such is how time works. Nothing lasts forever, even stars and galaxies. As far as the labor shortage that's easy, it will come in the form of humanoid robots. Humans, for the most part, are still to territorial. Just another sign that we are still lacking in evolution. That being said, people will push back on letting robots take all the jobs, but regardless of how anyone feels, the fact is that young people do not want to do the menial/repetative factory jobs, nor do they want to dedicate their lives to caring for the elderly and disabled. On another note, if LEV becomes a thing, those things might not even be something to worry about in our lifetimes.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You completely miss what I was addressing.

Par for the course.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Par for the course.

The claim was not missed, it was demonstrated as invalid. Easy to see when you yourself were unable to argue anything to defend the claim, by doing it you are agreeing it is simply false.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

A lower population has many benefits but there are hardly any news articles about this because bad news gets more views.

I hope that Japan doesn't go down the mass immigration route. Just look at the mess America and the U.K. is in!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A lower population has many benefits but there are hardly any news articles about this because bad news gets more views.

The articles are many because of the way the population is being reduced, with less people being economically active while the percentage of people no longer active increases. If nothing is done this is just a disaster slowly developing.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The articles are many because of the way the population is being reduced, with less people being economically active while the percentage of people no longer active increases. If nothing is done this is just a disaster slowly developing.

Japan is overpopulated. The disaster was letting the population reach 128 million in the first place. There may be some pain to be had but it will be better in the long run with a lower population.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

justsomeguy

The global population is still rising, right?

It is only rising in Africa. And you do not change that by having fewer babies in countries where the population is already falling off a cliff.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nickybutt

A lower population has many benefits but there are hardly any news articles about this because bad news gets more views.

The problem is not a lower, but stable population. The issue is how to get there. An inverted population pyramid with small base of young people supporting a gigantic head of aged ones is terrible for everyone involved.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan is overpopulated. The disaster was letting the population reach 128 million in the first place. There may be some pain to be had but it will be better in the long run with a lower population.

No it is not, as long as a population can be maintained there is no disaster in letting the population grow. Japan is not even in the top 20 of countries by population density which means that it hardly is overpopulated at the national level. If the reduction of population experimented now was in the opposite groups (sustained births with increasing deaths because of old age) it would not be a problem.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

JeffLee

This is not the common defination of "immigration," ie, entailing a straighforward path to citizenship, family reunion and dual/multiple citizens, as practiced by Western countries.

....starting with not a valid visa, but unqualified entry by just saying the magic word "asylum". Even when entering from a safe country. Indeed, no comparison at all.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites