The era of mass armies ended decades ago. Military power is now more a function of GDP than population size.
For South Korea, the only significant neighboring countries they might need to worry about are North Korea, China, and Japan. All of those have similar demographic problems.
Don't be so sure. I could easily see a country that has a pretty horrid demographic decline being invaded by a verile neighbour filled with young people who want more space. They will likely view it as taking what is rightfully theirs from their decadent and declining neighbours.
I suspect that will happen quite a bit in the next century. There is never an end to history, no matter how much we wish to believe that. It will just happen the next time around with a lot more remote killing machines and a lot of online multi-channel propaganda.
Sure they will[1]. Their declining birth rate just lags SK's by a few decades. Birth rate is generally inversely proportional to development and educational attainment in a country. As "global south" countries catch up on these metrics their birth rates will likely decrease.
For a demographic pyramid, just like a car accident, it's the acceleration that does the damage. If this happened more gradually it wouldn't be as much of a problem for the worker/retiree ratio.
The world population is still growing. There’s going to be significantly more people wanting to jump into lower middle class and consume even more. Koreans not reproducing changes nothing.
There aren't going to be fewer people as a result of this, there are just going to be fewer South Koreans in South Korea. When developed nations pursue non-procreative social policies and lose their demographics, they get internally replaced from undeveloped nations. The global population continues to grow.
I think it's still perfectly defensible, so long as you're equitable to all, and "other" isn't code for being a racist. Everyone should have access to birth control, family planning and advanced life opportunities. Everyone should have the opportunity to live a sustainable fulfilling life. That's often not possible if you're born into poverty, born to parents who didn't want you, or socially/culturally pressured into having children young.
The solution is better education, better contraceptive access & more sustainable economies that don't rely on endless growth that grinds human lives away for a pittance.
You twist what was said and then you say it is not defensible. Not cool.
There are two ways one can understand what you said and both are terrible takes.
You might imagine that everyone is somehow secretly racist/nationalistic/egoistic and somehow when they say we need fewer people they secretly mean that fewer of other “kind of” people. This is not true. When I say we need fewer people I include “my people” in that too, for whatever arbitrary grouping you would deem “my” people.
The other possible take is that you think everyone who thinks there should be fever people should commit suicide, or if they don’t they clearly mean “fewer other people”. This is also silly. In this context nobody proposes that we should get fewer people by killing anyone. People die. If you just stop making so many of them we will end up with less of them.
> This statement, being more accurate is much less defensible.
Why is that less defensible? Any other stance will see the end of your people and culture. And if that's desirable, why are you practicing a culture you wish to see end?
Or we could all come together, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
This is a Malthusian attitude that does not really encourage problem solving and collaboration; it's antihumanist to the core.
We should not retreat from our problems but solve them creatively - how do you do that? By solving's people's needs and enabling them to do what they want without worrying about poverty.
Seems to me that glibly throwing labels at people like that - Malthusian, antihumanist to the core - really doesn't "encourage problem solving and collaboration".
Saying we have too many people is way too close to fringe ideas like ‘useless eaters’ or something worse. Those beliefs need to be challenged at any opportunity as they are borderline dogwhistles.
Ok well, what we (should aspire to) do on HN is not throw labels or say ominously "X is way too close to Y", which also explains nothing, but calmly explain to the GP what, in your opinion, the problem is with what they said. Using facts, reason, shared ground, your experience. Teach us something, if you can. It's not easy, and takes some effort. Just throwing labels or slippery slopes around does nothing but make HN worse.
Or, for example, explain why you say "antihumanist", and someone might be able to engage with your reasoning, argue with your assumptions, or even teach you something.
