[Samurai]

This video dropped today by Data Scientist & Demographer Stephen J Shaw.

https://x.com/stephenjshaw?lang=en

https://youtu.be/F6KptpOuo7E

[PreludeSH]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This video dropped today by Data Scientist & Demographer Stephen J Shaw.

https://x.com/stephenjshaw?lang=en


https://Youtu.be/F6KptpOuo7E

Interesting. I believe population decline is more impactful to certain countries, states etc. Also, there is a sense of getting overwhelmed by population growth from what they see are not compatible places. There is a sense of getting lost in terms of culture, language and even civilizational traits. Immigration can help in short term but will create rifts after certain point.

Its making everyone frustrated too.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

Also, there is a sense of getting overwhelmed by population growth from what they see are not compatible places.

I too thought that was the gist of the argument. The issue is that "we need to have/produce more of 'our kind' " and not that we don't have enough people to make the world work.

Anyone who has had to wait in line or do without any sort of basic facility, who has circled Dadar station twice because the compartment was too packed to get out, I don't they will think we are in any danger of running out of people anytime soon!

Again, the illusion of racial/ethnic purity is also just that, an illusion. We are ALL of us a result of thousands of years of genetic mixing, migration and hybrid cultures. Freeze-framing a certain point in time and saying this is the way someone from x region/country should look/speak is a great political/religious platform, but it is already a myth.

[ajmat]

My take is that overall, the decline is a boon. However, an issue might be that the replacement population might be from the underprivileged who have less education.

If you look at the decline of society in the UK and the US with increasing homelessness. This might have a bearing.

I could be wrong.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by am1m

Again, the illusion of racial/ethnic purity is also just that, an illusion. We are ALL of us a result of thousands of years of genetic mixing, migration and hybrid cultures. Freeze-framing a certain point in time and saying this is the way someone from x region/country should look/speak is a great political/religious platform, but it is already a myth.

Right, but aren't you comparing two very different phenomena?

The type of genetic mixing you are explaining happened over multiple generations. Yes, none of us dress or act like our grandparents. I am talking about those of us in our 40-50s. But we are not that different than our immediate generation, like our own parents. That is because the societal change between us and our parents was lot less than us and our grandparents.

Similarly, when demographic change happens across 3 generations or more, assuming each generation is 25 years, the resistance to change is mild and can be considered evolutionary. Immigrants would have trickled in small numbers over decades and would slowly get assimilated as well as change the society to something different than before. Old people would lament how things were different they were young, etc. My mother did not have electricity until 21, and she was using smartphones in the last few years of her life. Massive change over the 3 generations she witnessed. But the young generation would be fine with it, since no major change happen to them. As far as my sons were concerned, smartphones always existed.

But the demographic collapse of the current magnitude in many countries, is forcing major demography change in the same generation, say within 25 years. When the fertility ratio is very low, the young generation itself is faced with major upheavals as they reach adulthood. Immigrants would have come from a very different culture and in large number in a small amount of time and would clash with the native culture.

This is what happened in UK and USA in the recent years. Brexit and Trump presidency are the result of backlash from the society to such massive changes.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Samurai

But we are not that different than our immediate generation, like our own parents. That is because the societal change between us and our parents was lot less than us and our grandparents.

This is certainly true for me, but not for my parents vis-a-vis their parents. There the change was so drastic, almost a 180 in almost every important social/outlook way imaginable. And that was only because my parents left their ancestral place at a very young age, lived in different cities, before finally settling down in Bangalore.

So it depends. In several of my friend's families, the difference between their orthodox and traditional parents and them is still as stark.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Immigrants would have come from a very different culture and in large number in a small amount of time and would clash with the native culture.

If you ask a lot of people in Bangalore, they would say Bangalore is going through the same 'upheaval' because of the influx of several IT industry 'migrants'. Most of my friends who were born in and grew up in Bangalore in the 80s are first-generation. Our parents came to the city in (for those days) large numbers for the government jobs too and assimilated in a very short time, and it wasn't seen as an issue. I know Mumbai went through several such changes in a very short time too.

I agree with your point that an influx can cause change, no doubt about that. Where I disagree is that in my opinion, it is seen as a disruption only when a political party makes it an issue.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by PreludeSH

There is a sense of getting lost in terms of culture, language and even civilizational traits.

Originally Posted by am1m

I too thought that was the gist of the argument. The issue is that "we need to have/produce more of 'our kind' " and not that we don't have enough people to make the world work....

Again, the illusion of racial/ethnic purity is also just that, an illusion.

While the idea that we should have more of our kind may seem narrow-minded or racist, there are practical aspects to it.

Humans have thrived compared to other species because we have been able to build communities, religions, nations based on shared values or shared stories (as Yuval Noah Harari puts it). It is practical because when a community thrives most of the community thrives. This is how it has been since we evolved. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, one may think that it is easy to replace one human with another, but let me ask this: Would an 80-year Japanese woman be more comfortable with a Japanese nurse or an immigrant nurse, even if the immigrant speaks perfect Japanese? Is she being racist if she prefers the former? The fundamental fact is that we are comfortable for things/people who are familiar. It is just how we have evolved as humans.

Second, as a population ages, the government has to spend more on senior citizen health care. But simultaneously as the working population age people decrease, the tax burden on the young per person increases.. As tax increases, the government will find it increasing difficult to attract immigration. Immigration will also decrease not because the 'natives' don't want it, but it is less attractive for immigrants. Remember that populous countries like India or China are growing well economically giving a good life here itself.

While automation may be a solution for manufacturing, services like Health care, education, hospitality etc will be a huge problem for these countries.

On a personal note, I am a Japanese language expert (JLPT N2) now getting trained to teach Japanese, under a joint program by the Embassy of Japan (New Delhi) and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The objective is to train more language teachers like me who can then enable Indian youth to take up jobs, like for example, under Japan's Specialized Skill Workers program. The training would get over in a month and I hope that I can create at least some impact. The Japanese people I interact with are really scared and concerned about this problem.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Humans have thrived compared to other species because we have been able to build communities,...

Absolutely! My only point is you can build a community with any set of people. Most of the neighborhoods in any of our Indian cities are the best examples of this.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Would an 80-year Japanese woman be more comfortable with a Japanese nurse or an immigrant nurse, even if the immigrant speaks perfect Japanese? Is she being racist if she prefers the former?

Fantastic example and thank you for this, has made me think. You are correct, I would not label this as racist.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Remember that populous countries like India or China are growing well economically giving a good life here itself.

Again, economically and overall, and for those in a position to be able to take advantage of this, like me, certainly a good thing. But would you say overall quality of life is getting better in any of our cities because of increasing population? I would disagree.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

The training would get over in a month and I hope that I can create at least some impact. The Japanese people I interact with are really scared and concerned about this problem.

Kudos to you for this. I am a huge admirer of Japan and the Japanese culture. So I wish they understand the realities and open their borders to immigration. It will revitalize their society and spread the essence of what it means to be Japanese to a greater section of the globe.

[PreludeSH]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

While the idea that we should have more of our kind may seem narrow-minded or racist, there are practical aspects to it.

Humans have thrived compared to other species because we have been able to build communities, religions, nations based on shared values or shared stories (as Yuval Noah Harari puts it). It is practical because when a community thrives most of the community thrives. This is how it has been since we evolved. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, one may think that it is easy to replace one human with another, but let me ask this: Would an 80-year Japanese woman be more comfortable with a Japanese nurse or an immigrant nurse, even if the immigrant speaks perfect Japanese? Is she being racist if she prefers the former? The fundamental fact is that we are comfortable for things/people who are familiar. It is just how we have evolved as humans.

I agree with what you say. But we should also identify/address the "real concerns" that people who are supporting the doom theory have. Its not population in general. Elon fires 80% of staff and now is involved in paring down gov. One could say its about govt jobs, tax money usage etc. But he has made everyone know what basic ideology he has.

AI is a super steroid for automation like never before. Having more net resources against population will always be helpful for the planet and increases quality of life.

Immigration works as long as its sub-servient, helps one prosper and fund non working population's social benefits. But only if there is a need.

Our country's needs are different. We need lesser population to increase quality.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by am1m

Absolutely! My only point is you can build a community with any set of people. Most of the neighborhoods in any of our Indian cities are the best examples of this.

Yes, you can build an economically thriving community with any set of people. But still a complete assimilation will not be possible or may take centuries. This is just my opinion. I am not a sociologist. I may be completely wrong. To state a couple of examples, when India plays England in England, there is overwhelming support for India. Same happens when Pakistan is playing England in England. Even English players have complained about this. I am not judging the fans here. Just stating facts. Similarly, when Trump/Vance got elected, there were fawning newspaper articles or WA forwards about Usha Vance, an American of Indian origin. Again, the people who are writing/forwarding these are not being racist. They are just being human, to feel happy seeing somebody 'familiar' being successful.

But would you say overall quality of life is getting better in any of our cities because of increasing population? I would disagree.

"Quality of life" is a very subjective topic. It is a human tendency to complain . Objectively speaking, India and China have brought hundreds of millions out of deep poverty in the last few decades. There is a fantastic post by "dragracer567" on the Understanding Economics thread which factually shows how much we have progressed in the last few decades.

[Fuldagap]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

While the idea that we should have more of our kind may seem narrow-minded or racist, there are practical aspects to it.

It is more of a cultural and nationalistic stance. Nothing much wrong in it though, just the way things stand today, in this instance for Japan.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Humans have thrived compared to other species because we have been able to build communities, religions, nations based on shared values or shared stories (as Yuval Noah Harari puts it). It is practical because when a community thrives most of the community thrives. This is how it has been since we evolved. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, one may think that it is easy to replace one human with another, but let me ask this: Would an 80-year Japanese woman be more comfortable with a Japanese nurse or an immigrant nurse, even if the immigrant speaks perfect Japanese? Is she being racist if she prefers the former? The fundamental fact is that we are comfortable for things/people who are familiar. It is just how we have evolved as humans.

YNH also emphasises that shared beliefs and identities are fluid and change over time. They make strong communities, no doubt, but they are fluid in nature, always evolving. Humans have thrived because we evolved in ways that no other species has been. Or that is what we believe so far.

Humans are lakhs of years old. Animistic religions are approx 50K year old. The longest surviving religions are about at max 10K year old.
Yazidi religion in Iraq, for example, shares commonalities with Hindu religion, thousands of kilometers apart and in a region totally amusing to believe today. With time, cultures, religions and other aspects of humans change or evolve. Concepts of ruling a geography also evolved a lot over thousands of years. Governance also evolves continuously.

While preserving culture, religion etc is crucial, as much crucial is to adapt and evolve. Communities that resist change or do not adopt, perish. There are many religions and cultures that are there no more. The few ones that have continuously survived, whether thriving or not, for more than say 3-5k years have something to teach.

The only thing that is constant and doesn't change with time is probably the office coffee machine.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Second, as a population ages, the government has to spend more on senior citizen health care. But simultaneously as the working population age people decrease, the tax burden on the young per person increases.. As tax increases, the government will find it increasing difficult to attract immigration. Immigration will also decrease not because the 'natives' don't want it, but it is less attractive for immigrants. Remember that populous countries like India or China are growing well economically giving a good life here itself.

While Japan is a popular example to show the demerits of an ageing population and other related issues, there are many thriving countries that have successfully used immigration to their advantage. US, UK, Canada, Australia, the whole of Middle East/Gulf, the list is endless. Even in countries that identify with a certain religion only, 100s of different nationality expats/immigrants could be found living lavishly better than their own countries.

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

On a personal note, I am a Japanese language expert (JLPT N2) now getting trained to teach Japanese, under a joint program by the Embassy of Japan (New Delhi) and the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The objective is to train more language teachers like me who can then enable Indian youth to take up jobs, like for example, under Japan's Specialized Skill Workers program. The training would get over in a month and I hope that I can create at least some impact. The Japanese people I interact with are really scared and concerned about this problem.

Isn't it a contradiction that Japanese govt being the representative of the people has started such a program that the people that you get to meet frown upon. It is upto the audience to see the data set and devise which is which and who is who.

Whenever there is a change, there is always resistance from certain pockets of society. But some understand, adapt and contribute more to the evolution.

I am not sure about the 80 year old Japanese lady being ill and preferring a local nurse example. Doesn't it blur the line between cultural comfort and exclusionary attitudes?

India is a great example for how it has assimilated, seamlessly almost every other religion found on the planet. There are African villagers living in villages in Maharashtra, marathi style. Parsis are a great example too. An so is every other community or religion that came here, stayed for whatever reasons and became a part of the culture. Religious people of faiths that do not allow such acts, taking astrology advices from another religion Beat that! People of another faith adopting food and clothing, even language from another culture and religion because it is cool. It happens and happened in India.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by am1m

Kudos to you for this. I am a huge admirer of Japan and the Japanese culture. So I wish they understand the realities and open their borders to immigration. It will revitalize their society and spread the essence of what it means to be Japanese to a greater section of the globe.

Will it? Or will it result in a dilution of the Japanese culture? With thousands of immigrants ( legal ) moving in, I feel things will only get diluted. The cities/country itself would become more "cosmopolitan" but no way more "Japanese". Some natives may be OK with it while some may not. incoming immigrants are not going to shed their culture and embrace Japanese in food, clothing, behaviour, social norms, etc. on the day of thier landing in Japan.

Can you give examples of cities/countries that allowed immigration in large numbers but still retain their specific old cultural values?

Be it Dubai, London, Toronto, NY, LA, Bangalore and Mumbai in India - the more immigration friendly, the more dilution of the core culture and it becomes more generic or cosmopolitan. Compare London with Paris or Vienna where they still retain their cultural elements.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by Fuldagap

It is more of a cultural and nationalistic stance. Nothing much wrong in it though, just the way things stand today, in this instance for Japan.

Most likely, yes. It would be interesting to see how South Korea, where I believe the problem is more acute handles it differently. Or for that matter, Russia. My belief is a cultural or nationalistic stance is not specific to Japan, though I may be wrong (as I am biased towards Japan and its people ).

Isn't it a contradiction that Japanese govt being the representative of the people has started such a program that the people that you get to meet frown upon.

No, what I meant was the Japanese people who I get to meet in India are scared of the problem of ageing/declining population and are supporting the government towards solving it via immigration. The people who are scared of the cultural impact of immigration are in Japan; I don't get to meet them .

[am1m]

Originally Posted by m8002?

Can you give examples of cities/countries that allowed immigration in large numbers but still retain their specific old cultural values?

My point is what are these 'old cultural values'? Did they too not evolve over time? And with the infusion of several influences? At what point in time do you 'freeze' a city's history and say 'this' represents our values/culture?

That's the point I'm trying to make- already in any city, we are living an amalgam. So what if that continues to evolve further? The elements that find use/value will remain, or be transformed and continue to exist in some form. What you see as dilution, I see as inevitable change and transformation. And I think it enriches a city.

[m8002?]

Originally Posted by am1m

My point is what are these 'old cultural values'? Did they too not evolve over time? And with the infusion of several influences? At what point in time do you 'freeze' a city's history and say 'this' represents our values/culture?

You mentioned you love Japanese culture. And you are also claiming it is transitional. So which timeline of Japanese culture did you talk about? Now? 100 years back before WW2 or 500 years back? Since at these specific times, things would be very different. To close this, I meant now.

Originally Posted by am1m

That's the point I'm trying to make- already in any city, we are living an amalgam. So what if that continues to evolve further? The elements that find use/value will remain, or be transformed and continue to exist in some form. What you see as dilution, I see as inevitable change and transformation. And I think it enriches a city.

I didnt mean to mention "dilution" in a negative way. Apologies if it came across that way. Thats why I also mentioned cosmopolitan. Like I said many ( including me ) will like that. I would any day prefer to be in a more open cosmopolitan place. But there will be an equal number that will hate it and want to stick to the ways they grew up on.

We have had enough discussion in the immigration thread, where many Indians form and stay with in Indian communities for decades - the more regional the better.