>


Never said it isn't foolish or shortsighted

No, but you said it wasn't rational.

you really haven't been paying attention if you think people are willing to put the planet over the immediate interests of themselves and their country

I didn't say they would, but that doesn't mean it's not the rational thing to do.
In the case of Japan, South Korea, and China, the richest and most developed parts of East Asia, they would rather deal with the effects of shrinking population than open up their countries to transformation via immigration. 
Also, people need to keep in the mind that just "opening up" the gates to immigration doesn't mean you will get the amount or type of immigrants you want. China has a bad human rights record and is not friendly to outsiders. There are much better places to go if you have an education and marketable skill. >

I’ll add that Japan and South Korea are in a unique situation. Based on geography, they can actually do a fairly strict and efficient job of controlling what type of immigrants are brought into their countries. They have total control of their borders, the fact that there are no easy land routes for immigration is a plus when it comes to this issue. So if they are serious about starting to ease immigration rules, they could probably do a much better job than the west in that regard. Of course your gonna have people overstay their visas and try and carve out a life under the radar but then the homogeneity of their respective countries would make that much harder for “foreigners”. It really is new territory for a lot of these countries and I hope they take a long hard look at other western countries to try and figure out a comprehensive immigration/labor plan that is beneficial for bother the immigrant and the host country >

Japan also has a distinctly Japanese culture that it's aging population desperately wants to cling to.
So Japanese factories are filled with Filipino immigrants who are underpaid and overworked and the elderly are cared for by Filipino nurses who are drastically underpaid for their labor. The Phillipines are becoming to Japan what Mexico is to the US. And they house those workers in company provided housing, where they interact less with the general population. And the last thing old people want is to see immigrants "taking over" by moving into the communities and ruining it with their differences. Hence why it's completely legal to engage in housing discrimination against immigrants. 
Meanwhile, the government still publicly maintains the appearance of strict immigration requirements while under the radar servicing this kind of arrangement. 
The future of Japan is blique. The elderly are utterly dominant as a political force and their interests supplant all others. There is also a thoroughly entrenched risk-averse business culture that stifles innovation and drains all the life out of younger generations. 
What Japan has in its favor is that the same stifling bureaucracy that limits innovation and sucks the life out of younger generations is also highly self perpetuating. The country won't collapse in any rush, but it's institutions will feel extreme strain as there simply will not be enough people producing wealth to sustain all those consuming it. >

Yeah I kinda pity the state of Japan, it is the first nation that comes to mind when I think "stagnant". >

Why do you say Japan belongs to the western world?
Aside from that, unsure of japans social programs, most people can’t afford to raise a child and government programs to incentivize child rearing is the first most effective form of raising the population. The other issue which is world wide is that fertility is tanking due to all of the toxic materials we are inadvertently exposed to on a daily basis. >


Why do you say Japan belongs to the western world?

They have a westernized government, with their current constitution being written by the United States. Before the Imperial era, Japan was a democracy that closely resembled the UK parliamentary system. >

Thanks. The term “belongs” to implies Japan is owned by the western world. But what you’re saying is their government is influenced by the western world? >

Hes using the term belongs as in is a part of rather than physically belongs to them. Japan is a western country because its economy and political structure have long been based on western models. >

Tired of hearing about this supposed crisis of declining birth rates. The World does not need more people. >

A ton of social programs depend on population growth to stay financially stable. >

Well then, these programs are the problem. >

They're quite racist so I don't think opening the borders will be a good fit. They're 125 million on very little good land. They may have peaked in terms of population. >

Why would Japans population decline be a problem?  Its a small island country, constant population growth is not sustainable. >

Then their ability to continue to provide welfare for an aging population also takes a hit.
It’s not like they save the money people set aside. The money you set aside pays for the people now and the money people set aside later pays for you.
It is quite impossible to keep a developed world infrastructure with a withering population. As you need more young people than old to keep that balance sustainable. >

As population growth isn’t the issue - it’s the really steep decline which is the issue. As replacement is what is needed - they are not replacing they are just losing. >

Population decline is a good thing. There are too many people. The only reason we're able to survive with this many is that very few live like Americans. The question should be "how can other countries be more like Japan?" >

You could argue its a good thing for the planet I guess, but on a national level population decline is pretty much objectively bad for a country, and no rational nation would want such a thing.
It hurts growth, economic output, innovation, and puts a huge strain on social services. No nation wants to be in Japan's situation right now, they have a very difficult economic & fiscal future ahead of them in part due to their aging population. >

If it's a good thing for the planet, then a rational nation would want it, especially since the things you mentioned aren't necessary. Like, "oh no! Our GDP didn't grow?" And? The economy is a means to an end. Sacrificing our planet for it is the height of foolish shortsightedness. >

Never said it isn't foolish or shortsighted, but you really haven't been paying attention if you think people are willing to put the planet over the immediate interests of themselves and their country, nations are fundamentally and inexctricably self-interested entities.
If you put a growing economy vs. avoiding overconsumption on a ballot, voters will choose a growing economy every single time because, like it or not, voters care more about immediate gains in growth & the economy than abstract concepts like avoiding overconsumption. They might be willing to accept some minor sacrifices here & there, but no society will just willingly shoot itself in the head and stop pursuing growth.
It's a bitter pill to swallow but for a solution to something like overconsumption to be seriously considered it needs to take that fact into consideration, otherwise it's just pointless make-believe which will never see implimentation.