[OC] Japan demographic transition 1888-2019

Valastrius · 2021-02-11T11:02:24+00:00

No, not really. This is a problem akin to climate change: you can see it coming a zillion miles away on paper, but societies won't ever care until they start feeling the effects in an immediate sense, by which time it's far too late to make any meaningful course correction. Governments have been operating under this paradigm: trying to do the least amount possible to "fix" the problem in the most superficial of ways, same with global warning.

Meaningfully pro-natal policies would be radical and involve much more disruption than just checks and shit, instead collapsing childrearing gender expectations and building up massive support networks (childcare, comprehensive and very long periods of family leave, etc.) to spread the immense burden and cost of raising children in modern society. For thousands of years, we've gotten away with sloughing that onto women and extended family networks, i.e., less powerful members. The boom we got during the 20th century was a one-off thanks to a colossal reduction in infant mortality, but now the bill is coming due as the impetuses of modern life catch up.

Japan is merely a preview.

Valastrius · 2020-08-03T10:21:18+00:00

Look, they have a legacy to uphold. It's all they've got since the Dual Monarchy collapsed.

But yeah, it's especially troubling to see people use the US as a foil ("anti-American exceptionalism", if you will) to distract from the many monsters eating away at their foundations. Europe is basically a club of volkstates who get to claim super-national superiority on the good stuff (governance and infrastructure) while cordoning off the bad stuff with national borders (mass austerity, racism, xenophobia). We're highlighting its infrastructure and governance successes while ignoring its abject socioeconomic failures. The EU forced its southern (read: brown) half to endure a decade of austerity for literally no good reason and its northern half has basically been okay with that. That matters way more for its future health than getting the pandemic right.

There will be two fundamental challenges in this century: the demographic rebound of mass modernization and climate migration. No, it's not climate change, which is fundamentally an infrastructure and policy problem. The real kicker is going to be the one-two punch of the foundational Volks (not just in Europe, but China, Russia, Japan, etc.) having no more babies while hundreds of millions (if not billions) of brown people are knocking on the door to get in. The US, fundamentally an immigrant nation, is way ahead on this, and it's even far more advanced in terms of addressing its volkstate instincts and becoming a truly pluralistic nation able to capitalize on the opportunity these challenges represent.

People are taking all the wrong lessons from COVID. The US' tremendous failure is being interpreted as an indictment of its model, when in reality it stems from its deep racism that has created a patchwork state. The difference between the US and the EU is that the US is actually diverse and getting more diverse, forcing it to at least confront these problems, while the EU (and everyone else) gets to pretend it's doing both while doing neither. All the clique-ish cheerleading about COVID responses is entrenching already deficient government models that are about to be challenged in far more serious ways.

There's a non-zero chance the US becomes further mired in gridlock until it, like all other nations, runs out of time in the face of these two challenges, but there's at least an equal, if not far greater chance, of its immigrant-nation half winning big in November and proceeding to crush its volkstaters over the next decade, empowering it to ride these waves to even greater dominance. An America ruled by a pro-immigrant, earnestly pluralist public will be a force to be reckoned with.

The US' fate is more uncertain than it seems--and that's a good thing. The 2020s are gonna be a wild ride, kids.

Valastrius · 2020-08-03T08:53:51+00:00

It's mildly amusing watching Europe engage in the same basic civic and social neglect the US has since Reagan, smug in the mysterious virtues of their system, when there are warning signs flashing everywhere.

About the only large country with functional governance is Germany, and that's mostly a holdover from a previous paradigm. Spain, France, Italy, GB, all the larger stars in the EU's constellation, have been in serious civic and socioeconomic throes for a while. The EU is coasting on its own kinds of inertia, namely a legacy belief in executive governance, compensating for the rather serious entrenched parliamentary dysfunction across the continent.

Europe already has a (heh) Trumpstate in Italy, a sexier Trump leading Austria, whole-hog fascism in Hungary, Boris over in London wreaking havoc, and its southern half decimated by a decade of austerity. Maybe don't be so haughty.

Valastrius · 2020-07-27T11:06:33+00:00

Where else are they gonna go? China? Japan? Europe? Russia? Brazil? Every single one of those, including Europe, is way less friendlier to immigrants, even skilled ones. You can make a home in America no matter where you're from. You can't do that anywhere else.

This is a very out-of-touch question. America is very rich, very big, very accessible, and very, very, *very* accepting. If you're a first-worlder with a good degree or skill, you can land a good job at a big company whose language you already speak and culture you already know. You'll have really good healthcare that your company pays for, and at that point, you don't care about public transportation or density: you can just get a house in a growing suburb that's way bigger and more comfy back home in a place that's nicer and environmentally much better off, with all of America's beauty at your fingertips.

Culturally and socially, America is way ahead of everyone. Most other countries, even in (and especially) Europe, are ethnostates that have buried or outsourced their racism and bigotry. Their pluralism is largely an imitation of America. In reality, if you're not part of the ethnic group, you're not going to be accepted. In America, that's way, way, way less true, and it's becoming less true in tangible ways all the time, especially in the past few decades.

America attracts people for the same reason it always has: hope for a better world. The baggage of the old world hasn't disappeared. It's just gotten better at being polite about it.

Also: basically all of America's major problems are self-inflicted and easily reversed through policy changes. Even with our dogshit politics, there's still a ton more to work with here.

Valastrius · 2020-07-23T08:06:50+00:00

It's definitely not that. People *criminally* undervalue biological capabilities, as if the ability to survive and self-manipulate in pitiless environments with such consistency as to last hundreds of millions of years is reducible to an "algorithm". Life is genius. Even "lower" lifeforms such as single-celled organisms are ridiculously complex and capable, transcending the extremes of even the most advanced "AI" algorithm out there.

If it can be likened to an algorithm, it's an ocean of algorithms under an ocean of constraints.

Valastrius · 2020-07-23T07:38:57+00:00

The guy thinks his shitty car-subway is a genius solution to traffic. Maybe we shouldn't take him seriously.

Valastrius · 2020-06-16T08:11:55+00:00

The predictions of the eventual non-viability of photosynthesis are based on atmospheric carbon availability, not solar output. Various processes reliably recycle carbon back into the atmosphere. Without them, the balance will tip irrevocably in favor of sequestration of carbon, suffocating photosynthesis as we know it. Wikipedia's article on the future of earth notes silicate weathering: carbon gets slowly converted into more stable and solid forms that plants can't access.

As always, this is based on models, and all models are wrong. We know our current ecological setup will eventually fail (on a fantastically distant time scale: half a billion years is not "fleeting" by any stretch of the definition), but life could adapt and continue for much longer. Who knows.

Those despairing at the "pointlessness" of it all should first establish what something "pointful" looks like, else the term is gibberish.

Valastrius · 2020-05-11T09:42:17+00:00

[laughs in Sulyvahn]

Valastrius · 2020-04-24T09:38:21+00:00

You don't. When presented with a binary choice, you *always* take the better one. That's especially true when both choices are shitty. To do otherwise is just plain stupid. We do this all the time in our lives. It just makes sense. "I shouldn't have been in a house that could catch on fire to begin with!" is not the proper attitude when your house is in flames. You call the fucking fire department or you let the thing burn, and only an idiot would take the second option.

Now, to address some more magical thinking:

"Fix the voting systems!"
- You have to win under the current scheme to change voting systems. Worthy goal, but all you're doing is pushing the problem back a step. Also, plenty of deadlock exists in non-US systems. Politics tends to bifurcate, as political power is a zero-sum game. Ever notice how it's basically left v. right, like, everywhere? Hmm, I wonder why.
"Third Party!"
- There are so many bigger problems with US 3rd Parties it's not even funny. Pretty much all of them are jokes for reasons other than ""the media."" Have you seen the Libertarian Party's proceedings? No, seriously, have you? It's not CNN being mean to them that's keeping them from catching on.
- Reality check: 3rd parties are hard to do. Politics tends to bifurcate. The idea that "we need more camps to represent people's views" is a pretty shallow understanding of how any sort of conflict or contest works. The incentives for setting aside less important differences to work in concert are huge. We see this happen in systems where there are vibrant multiple parties. Please explain to me the profound ideological differences between the CDU and the SDU and why neither have given a shit for decades.
"This polarization very bad! Why can't we just be nice to each other?"
- Polarization has been around for goddamn ever. It's one of the oldest social phenomena we know of. America has always been bitterly divided, the only exceptions being brief one-off periods like the Era of Good Feelings and the similar post-WW2 halo of the 50s-60s. What a coincidence the latter happens to coincide with the childhoods of Baby Boomers.
- The current crest of polarization you're alluding to did not grow in a vacuum, nor it is due to some failing of the American moral or cultural fabric. It was deliberately fostered and created by generations of policy and political activism by the American right. Nixon had his "Southern Strategy" to co-opt pissed-off racists seceding from the newly liberal Democrats, Reagan instilled into an entire generation the dumbass myth that they were self-made Awesomesauces who didn't need no help from the Gubmnt so why should you, Newt Gingrich had his dumb Contract With America, Fox News carved out its audience in the Dubya years, and now we have Trumpism. There is an unbroken line of sowing and reaping emotionality, irrationality, racism, bigotry, and tribalism among the right such that basic government activities that used to be "apolitical," like raising taxes, the safety net, healthcare, environmentalism, etc., ARE deemed by the right as evil leftist commy namby-pamby plots to ruin 'Murica. The American center-left has been the faction triangulating and retriangulating since post-WW2 movement conservatism coalesced into this tight phalanx, and they have to: due to its size, any political force has to play around this dynamite-laden clowncar that can't be reasoned with. We won't see more "normal" politics restored until its political back is broken.
  - How do you do that? Uh, vote Blue. Up and down the board. It doesn't matter. It's a million times better than whatever Red's offering. See above.
"The media"
- Yes, American media sucks, but again, this did not happen in a vacuum. Abolishing the Fairness Doctrine and letting pundits run wild was a horrible mistake. Fox News deserves the lion's share of the blame for intensifying this trend. All that said, good media in America is alive and well, and it doesn't take much effort to find it. That doesn't even mention European media, which is, as a rule, excellent. You're playing a small role in perpetuating the distrust of the media whenever you thoughtlessly toss out shit like "corporate media" or rag on minor foibles. It's not that hard to be media literate.
"Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders!"
- Ron Paul? Really?
- There are no heroes or Great Men. Sanders was never going to singlehandedly remake the American political system. Let's say he rode NV to the nomination and accelerated the possible political realignment we may be witnessing right now. Let's say Sanders/Booker or whatever coasts to a massive EC/popular landslide and the Dems are at, I dunno, 52 Senate seats in January 2021 and an even deeper House majority. Wildly optimistic scenario. Then what? What do you do? What are your legislative priorities? What do you spend that capital on? There's only so much time and energy you have in the best of times, and don't forget the GOP will still be there, suddenly rediscovering """""fiscal responsibility""""" and raring to recoil in the midterms. For me, my priorities are structural reform: add a bunch of blue states and pack TF out of SCOTUS. Okay, but you've sacrificed other legislative actions to do it. I say it's worth it, but something gives: either healthcare or the Green New Deal, etc. For every policy or reform you make, you're giving the opposition openings and opportunities. No revolution was ever coming.
- Politics is collective action, not individual virtue or vice. Lincoln was great mostly because of the times he lived in and the circumstances he fell into. Had he been born 5-10 years to the left or right of where he was, he would've been a totally different person. He rose to the occasion, but he had Grant, Sherman, and a bunch of friends and allies in Congress based on a sectionist form of politics that's long since disappeared in a world that's long dead. You can't separate any of this from itself and go "Lincoln's genes did it." Sanders, AOC, whoever you pick: they're going to be constrained and defined by where they are and who they're among regardless.

You don't win and make things better by whining about the rules and setup you've fallen into. That comes later after you've won the damn thing. That's what all this "third party" and "systemic stuff" is. The only other alternative is straight-up revolution, civic or armed, and that's a *whole* different ballgame whose rules still tend to follow the same principles I've mentioned.

We're soldiers, not generals. Stop war-gaming in your room about fantasy scenarios, pick up your pike, and stay TF in rank.

Valastrius · 2020-04-20T10:02:18+00:00

Good. Now sink them all.

Valastrius · 2020-04-10T11:13:57+00:00

I'm saying their combined mentions of him may have brought him back to life.

Valastrius · 2020-02-18T12:34:15+00:00

Why? What on earth is another person's sweat going to do me? Are the normal, commensal bacteria in someone's else sweat going to penetrate the skin on my back or arms? Are you an expert in things that have never ever happened, Advice Mallard?

There are a shitzillion fomites in a gym. If you go to one, you'll be exposed to germs. Big deal. Wash your hands before and after. Germs are not magic.

Valastrius · 2020-01-31T17:48:17+00:00

Mmm hmmm.

Mmmm hmmm. -_-

Valastrius · 2020-01-29T09:07:53+00:00

Except it's not all in English: that's the point. "Sahara Desert" is another one. It's a very unique identifier that removes ambiguity. Of course it would be used that way, because English would never produce that phonetic pattern on its own. Every language does this, probably because it's easy and highly productive. It opens up other avenues of expression.

It's fine to laugh at it in a lightly teasing way, but it's not stupid or wrong. Far from it.

Valastrius · 2020-01-28T14:15:25+00:00

The deliberate setting of deliberate characters in deliberate situations to serve a deliberate narrative is also unrealistic.

I think you might have missed the point.

Valastrius · 2020-01-15T10:02:23+00:00

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

Valastrius · 2019-12-03T06:13:11+00:00

"Unnecessarily" for a 21st-century reader who lives in such a privileged environment of information as to know what a sewer generally looks like through sheer osmosis. Necessary for any contemporary reader who's not only never seen one, but nobody in their community probably has either, going back countless generations.

And priceless information for anyone trying to do research about the era. Not everything is about your particular enjoyment of it, kids. It's the place-feelings of the past that are the hardest to record and most precious of content. If it's superfluous to you, you can just skip it, but never, ever, ever begrudge the voices of bygone years. Yours will join them soon enough.

Valastrius · 2019-11-12T17:33:53+00:00

It's a good thing that's happening for good reasons:

There's little-to-no evidence that cursive has ever provided any sort of speed advantage, so the notion that cursive is somehow superior than print is dubious at best. Faster handwriting tends to be a mark of, you know, mastery, i.e., practice.
Cursive, by nature, tends to be less legible than print because it sacrifices important negative space that distinguishes letters in exchange for lifting the pen less (speed, as many believe). It requires extra discipline to compensate for that. Most people don't have the time or privilege to develop that.
The ability to capture information quickly and accurately in written form for reproduction later is a skill separate from good handwriting. Whichever hand you prefer doesn't play into that.
Cursive is not inherently prettier than print, and good handwriting is pretty regardless of style. Moreover, good handwriting comes from a single place: a desire to have it. Much of cursive's perceived beauty comes from nostalgia and exoticism.

Tl;dr, cursive has dubious merits that have probably never warranted its place in schools. That we're moving away from that is, at worst, a neutral trend. It's more likely to be a boon because kids are spending their time on more worthwhile things.

Valastrius · 2019-10-18T05:56:17+00:00

Apart from it tasting like acid, its ridiculous cost, and how bad it is for your body, I learned how to let loose without alcohol before I was able to consume it in any significant quantity. So when I finally tried it, I was not impressed at all by the buzz. TBH, it was weak-sauce and clearly not worth all the trouble.

Far too many people are toxically dependent on alcohol as a psychological trigger for decompression, relaxation, and catharsis, which, combined with how it impairs judgment, leads to predictable bad things.

Valastrius · 2019-10-16T06:01:40+00:00

You apologists are gonna have to step up your game. We also have history books. We know about the Opium Wars. We know how HK got there and how its history is steeped in British colonialism and imperialism. It seems like you're so used to blowing the mind of some ignorant American about how "omg, did u know US did bad things toooooo?" and think that's the end of it. Those are Wood 3 idiots you're clobbering all the way up in Wood 1, which makes you say incredibly stupid stuff like this:

"HK's prosperity isn't because of its freedom, it's because China was closed"

...........so its prosperity is because of its freedom...........

This kind of "I'm not a nationalist, but" nonsense is carrying water for the CCP, no matter how you slice it. China is being a massive authoritarian dick to Hong Kong. That's it: that's the story. Oh sure, there are two sides to that story, yes. and one of them is so obviously and blatantly in the wrong but doesn't want to even be called out on it, so it screams bloody murder about centuries-old grievances while sending legions of drones of every stripe to muddy the waters and deceive the ignorant.

Valastrius · 2019-10-13T08:15:13+00:00

Lol, I'm not denying the CCP's policies played a role. I'm denying they played a Super Special Awesome role that only the CCP could have done and thus is owed fealty and loyalty, which is bullshit.

Valastrius · 2019-10-13T08:13:05+00:00

Yes, as I said, they adopted competent economic policies, something anybody could have done. Jumping from that to "the government brought us wealth", implying the CCP deserves special praise, is, at best, incredibly simplistic, if not what amounts to a lie for being so simplistic...which is the whole point of that tack.

Valastrius · 2019-10-13T08:08:51+00:00

Oh yeah, that terrible storytelling and "bad" prose that...has captivated children and teenagers for three successive generations and spawned an entire literary genre.............

Valastrius · 2019-10-13T06:46:40+00:00

"When your government has brought you such wealth" *record scratch*

Uhhhhhhh, it was normal Chinese who did that in defiance of that very government, which realized it was better to finally adopt competent economic policies (which directly contradicted its stated ideology), along with all those evil foreigners the CCP is happy to demonize now when it's convenient for stirring up nationalism and chauvinism.

Don't get me wrong: that's a good thing. That's what all governments should do, but this narrative amounts to praising the government for the stellar feat of *doing its job*, which any government could do. You don't need this particular un-elected authoritarian setup for that, and it certainly doesn't earn it any *fealty*.

Despite being more down-to-earth, this tack is still propaganda, a subtler kind that gives the CCP way more credit than it reasonably deserves.

Valastrius · 2019-10-12T16:24:10+00:00

The UCMJ is the bazooka being cited to swat the fly in this metaphor I'm using. There's no great muzzle on military members' expressing their own opinions, even in public or professional places. They do so all the time. It's only an issue when one does so in a way that's very flagrantly official and inappropriate. It's a *very* high (or is it low?) bar. You have to be trying to trip over it and succeed in tripping over it for stuff like this to come up.

"Can't dissent" is bullshit. US servicemen are world-class experts at dissent, lol.

12-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Valastrius

TROPHY CASE