Are there any historical examples of the current crash in developed world birthrates?

>Japan will be just fine

Japan is currently seeking more and more foreign investment and workers to help fix their stagnating economy. They just reached the 1,000,000 mark of foreign workers in their country and the number is going up while their population is getting older.

Japanese people could possibly go extinct in our lifetime.

>I'm personally not aware of any population that, left to their own accord, simply bred themselves out of existence by being too frigid.
Pandas.

>Japanese people could possibly go extinct in our lifetime.
Now that's retarded.

Pandas are just mentally retarded.
They were never meant to eat bamboo but they do it anyways but their stomachs can't actually process it so they have to literally eat all day thus leaving no time for fucking.
They're just stupid animals, so they don't realize what the fuck they are doing.

what the hell happened in japan in 1975 that gave them the idea that their rate would magically jump up like that?

Japan has low birthrates because of their cancerous dog-eat-dog capitalist culture and feminism leaving beta males alienated

anime

No, you don't come back from 1.6 or lower. You just don't. Other people take your country over as you die off.

The world doesn't need a gorillion people

A modern first world nation can thrive with 10 million people. The trouble lies with 3rd world savages who live to breed like mindless sex crazed animals.

Disco.

The thing, is that "neutral rate" is at 2.1
So if you think the current trend is temporary, you graph it towards 2.1 and stop there.

Which is also why the 2002 trend is acceptance, and so is the 2006 trend.

Abe is a cuckold after all

>special case
>southern europe
>eastern europe
>east asia
>Uruguay

Japanese

Not an answer

Yeah, check out Roman fertility rates via paleodemography

?

Wasn't it like 6+

Didn't the Romans have a ton of babies?

It was practically Africa? Or maybe that was during the Republic

>1.25

Wew

That's 1/2th of the previous generation (the replacement rate is 2.12-2.15).

youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

>Bill and Melinda Gates foundation

So no more anime? I don't know wether I should be sad or glad.

Will Japan be the first full female nation relying on foreigners to birth individuals.

When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard "having children" as a question of pro's and cons, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro and con. Everywhere, wherever life is actual, reigns an inward organic logic, an "it," a drive, that is utterly independent of waking-being, with its causal linkages, and indeed not even observed by it. The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births.

And at that point, too, in Buddhist India as in Babylon, in Rome as in our own cities, a man's choice of the woman who is to be, not mother of his children as amongst peasants and primitives, but his own "companion for life," becomes a problem of mentalities. The Ibsen marriage appears, the "higher spiritual affinity" in which both parties are "free" — free, that is, as intelligences, free from the plantlike urge of the blood to continue itself, and it becomes possible for a Shaw to say "that unless Woman repudiates her womanliness, her duty to her husband, to her children, to society, to the law, and to everyone but herself, she cannot emancipate herself."The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of "mutual understanding."

It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady's who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne's who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine's who "belongs to herself" — they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful.

At this level all Civilizations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms, and finally the land itself, whose best blood has incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the Fellah type.

If anything has demonstrated the fact that Causality has nothing to do with history, it is the familiar "decline" of the Classical, which accomplished itself long before the irruption of Germanic migrants. The Imperium enjoyed the completest peace; it was rich and highly developed; it was well organized; and it possessed in its emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius a series of rulers such as the Csesarism of no other Civilization can show; And yet the population dwindled, quickly and wholesale. The desperate marriage-and-children laws of Augustus — amongst them the Lex de maritandis ordinibus, which dismayed Roman society more than the destruction of Varus's legions — the wholesale adoptions, the incessant plantation of soldiers of barbarian origin to fill the depleted country-side, the immense food-charities of Nerva and Trajan for the children of poor parents — nothing availed to check the process. Italy, then North Africa and Gaul, and finally Spain, which under the early Caesars had been one of the most densely populated parts of the Empire, become empty and desolate.

>who live to breed like mindless sex crazed animals.
Yeah, but nah

>It's a "The West will collapse just like Rome because of X" episode

Jesus christ those teeth

>said nowhere in OP

>why yes user, Rome had 1.2 kids per woman! So it's totally comparable to 2017!