We (or at least i am) are living in Taiwan enjoying it because of the Taiwanese people, culture, food, customs etc. If Taiwanese get replaced with Vietnamese for example (just for the sake of example, i like Vietnamese people and Vietnam) then it won’t be the same. If that’s the case just move to Vietnam to begin with.
People do all of these things fine and have been doing so for decades. In fact pollution used to be 10x more severe, working conditions 10x worse and traffic 10x worse, but people had way more children then. How do you explain that? How do you explain countries that have like almost no fucking traffic or pollution (and people) ALSO barely having any children and have to rely on much poorer Muslims to carry their fertility rate? How do you explain the fact that Asian Americans, the most well-off demo in the US living in the richest states, having by far the fewest children, while African Americans and Hispanic Americans, who are by far the poorest demo, having by far the most children amongst Ameircans?
It’s almost as if none of what you are saying are the real reasons.
According to? Where are your stats? Based on the 12 people you know?
Korean Americans have FEWER children than Koreans (though this year Korean fertility rate might be lower as it’s legit like 0.6 at this point). It would be the same for Taiwanese Americans.
Every first world country will have a shrinking population. Immigration may not solve this problem, it may just delay it. Sooner or later they will have to deal with it. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Quite possible I might have misread your reference to “locals are on the cards to be outnumbered”. If so, please accept my apologies, text can sometimes lack the nuance of speech.
That is a rather generous interpretion. There is a constellation of factors that impact reproduction, some of which are entangled.
Comparing over time, the living environment has deteriorated. Granted, it might be better now than the recent past. e.g. my father inlaw used to swim in the local river, now its inconceivable. Peruse for a bit some of the history threads shows that even in the japanese period taiwan’s streets were objectively wider than today. Multiple threads exist on Taiwanese pedestrian infrastructure being unfit for purpose and inconvenient best.
Regarding apparent inconsistency between having large numbers of kids and levels of pollution: you compare number of children families had, a decision that is made within an increasingly declining time frame (in the old days people had kids earlier over a long time - you might be familiar with families where an aunt is in the same age group as a nephew/niece), with once-off profit decisions to invest in alternative technologies and infrastructure. Put in another way, the potential marginal rate of change in individual human choice is much higher than for an institution. Decisions to procreate and pollute are made by different players under different goals, scenarios, societal structures and sectors, and power arrangements.
Social structure has changed, along with attendant support from family. Previous generations could depend on grandparents and extended family to help look after a baby. Also, medical advances during Taiwan’s industrialisation could have reduced infant mortality before people adjusted reproductive practices, leading to high births in the past. The nuclear family means anything to do with the baby is on the individual. Fraying social fabric also creates toxic environment where even if one lives with parents child-raising drama can be unbearable. Public services around childcare can be rather opaque: you have no idea about the person taking care of your child. There have been scandals around child safety, unfounded or not, as a potential parent it is better to err on tje side of caution.
Parenting methods have changed as well, with very expensive options available for child care, unless you can get into a government facility, while cheaper, is still a sizeable chunk of dough.
The window of opportunity for drama-free conception is shrinking, due to people having babies later than in the past. Schooling should be one of the biggest contributors to this: 16+ years of schooling, plus the necessary recoupment in a well-paying job that one cannot afford to lose - cant have an expensive phd just to be a hausfrau or not seek that promotion that would be foregone if you spend more time in family-oriented activity. There is a reason why “work-life balance” is a thing.
Cross-country comparisons are always difficult. Human decisions depend on existing material conditions, and historical events that shape a populace’s outlook, plus governmental policies (who knows what goes on in a policy-maker’s head?) Nevertheless we should not underestimate the impact of globalisation’s impact on convergence of governance, social, polotical and economic norms, leading to what is usually called the demographic transition. Religious affiliation also has an impact on birthrates:
which has engendered theories of replacement and attendant conflict.
Re: countries having higher birth rates - evokutionary biology posits when life expectancy is short, it pays, genetically, to have as many kids as possible to maximise passing on one’s genes. The countries you allude to are undergoing political strife, wars, natural disasters.
This is longer winded than I hoped, but this no one/two variable issue.
My father-in-law used to labour on a fishing boar, while my mother-in-law used to work on a vegetable plot while trying to take care of four kids.The lifestyle looks good when you don’t have to do it.
The first Chinese textbook I used in Taiwan, admittedly old, had a foreigner returning from a trip to Kaohsiung and explaining it was getting so prosperous that many of the farmers could afford bicycles now!
About previous generations having many children, pollution etc: Originally, you had little pollution, people had many children, and they died of poverty and disease. With industrialisation, the child death rate declined, people began to work in factories, and pollution soared. There has been quite a difference in, say, the pollotion of the Love River when I first moved to Kaohsiung, and now- we used to sing “Dirty Old Town” as Kaohsiung’s anthem- not to mention the air quality. When I moved to Taitung 35 years ago, the streets were full of garbage and what is now Seaside Park was an industrial waste dumping ground, full of toxic chemicals and animal carcasses.
Taiwan is cleaner, people live longer, and life is easier. If you long for the old days, go ahead- not with any cellphones or mechanical equipment, but spending all day plodding behind the ass end of a water buffalo, while maybe your kids are fortunate enough to work 14 hours a day in a plastic Barbie doll factory.
The Good Ol’ Days weren’t all that good, in spite of looking at them through a nostalgic haze.
Fishing boars? That’s a new one. Does the pig catch fish for you?
You should know my grandparents (on the mother’s side) had very bad backs, you see this in old people. Reason being they worked 14 hours a day plowing fields and doing farm labor all day, hunched over to plant seed or remove weeds. It screws up their back.
My grandparents on my father’s side didn’t have bad back because they were former soldiers who fought in the great war and so became civil servants in Taiwan, meaning they worked as administrators.
I doubt it has to be so Manichaen: pointing out the trends does n9t necessarily imply idealising the past, but more about what the societies do with the hand they have been dealt with.
On measuring wealth, that is always relative to what resources, policy and lifestyle can priviledge. It is not inconceivable that our latest gadgets could, in another society at this very moment, be considered as poor measures of wealth.
People of old got bad backs, mangled limbs, shorter lifespans etc from labouring in nature and disease outbreaks, on our multiples more people have degrees (the quality and value are contested), part curative and palliative medicine have advanced tremendously though the disease outbreaks are still with us. We just carry these chronic (and at times lifestyle) diseases like early onset cancers, obesity etc, and now moderate tech access according to wealth (covid vaccines come to mind). Not passing judgement: each era has its own challenges.
I like Donovan’s contributions on ICRT (I assume it’s him).
However, I’m not sure about his point of only 10% of education expenditure being spent on encouraging breeding. Surely education expenditure is a significant part of encouraging breeding? He doesn’t seem to offer any other solutions to encourage breeding other than only 10% of the education budget is being spent on it, whatever it is.
Vague stuff about capitalism, as well.
I also don’t get the paperwork problem regarding having a child.
I meant for the poorer nation, in this case: India. India is to lose its best and brightest because Germany couldn’t bother to repopulate and instead wants to take away from those who could.
Did Germany invest in the education or costs of raising these youth? Nah Germany just pluckin’ em away and we Westerners acting like it’s a viable and morally good solution. Sigh…
Just look at Europe proper! Look at the issues Italy and Spain face for example as their people emigrate out of there: no youth…no children…and thus no future…with no way out.