South Korea: population of 51.7 million, annual population growth rate -0.2%. Vanishing from the world map isn't quite imminent.
They could simply let in 100,000 immigrants to fix the growth rate. I know it's not as simple as that in a society like Korea's, but 100k is perfectly manageable for such a large country. Take primarily young people with some useful level of education. They'll work, learn the language, marry, and start new families that become primarily Korean.
As I read the suggestion, they don't have to be Korean (not needing to already be the nationality before arriving is generally true for most immigrants).
But if they did, and for whatever reason none of those who has emigrated from Korea wanted to go back to the old country, there's a whole extra Korea just on the northern border, and they used to be the same country…
Like other immigrants around the world, they gradually become Koreans when they work, learn the language, marry, have children, and spend the rest of their lives there.
(Of course South Korea's case is very particular because they actually have an enormous reserve of eager potential immigrants who already speak the language, living just across their land border, an hour away from Seoul. The problem is that the other side of the border won't let anyone go.)
That's a problem of attitude, not genetics. A person born in Korea can become American, British, Swedish, Singaporean, Brazilian, etc. There's no fundamental reason why it wouldn't work the other way if Koreans wanted their society to be open to newcomers. With shrinking population they may want to have that national conversation eventually.
Anyway, when you bring in young single people, the primary cultural diffusion is through their eventual children. They will be Korean in a way that the immigrant parent might never personally feel.
It's entirely different if the newcomers are primarily young and single and start families with non-immigrant Koreans. Seeing that as problematic is a slippery slope into Nazi-style racial heritage mathematics where you'd be obsessing over who's only 3/8 Korean, etc.
dismissing the concept of ethnicity may be appealing in the Western bubble but you will find few takers in the rest of the world.
to reduce the NK situation to "they won't let anyone go" is also disingenuous. even if you ignore that the US refuses to allow any more meaningful peace so it can justify a continued military presence halfway across the globe, the US and South Korea are clearly more powerful and wealthy. clearly they are in a better position than NK to make concessions and pave the way for integration.
"Soonish" at the time scales of current demographic trends is still hundreds, if not thousands, of years for even the most rapidly aging country.
And cease to exist is a bit dramatic, certainly populations will decline given the current replacement rates in many westernized countries, but they aren't going to disappear. They will decline to some lower steady state, but nowhere near zero.
Speaking off the cuff, I'm not sure that nations can be strictly, or even mostly, defined by their ethnicity. I would need to do some numbers to say anything more formally, but I constantly come back to Israel, Rome, Turkey, even China, where the "nation" had such imminent prestige that myriad ethnicities took on its "nationhood" upon entering/invading/outbreeding even while having zero common parentage with the founders. Did the meta-nations lose something in the process? Sure. Did they endure? I'd say yes. Your nation doesn't necessarily stop because its people are suddenly able to sprout fantastic moustachios. But boy, is that a sore topic. It might actually be the sorest.
Japan is the example that immediately comes to mind for me of an ethnically-homogenous nation. My understanding is that someone who isn't ethnically Japanese can never truly "fully assimilate".
Yeah. As an industrialized country, you either subsidize childbirth, optimize immigration/naturalization/colonializations, or die. There's no third path that I can think of . . aside from deindustrialization. I guess Japan's working on artificial wombs and lots of robots? That might do the trick, I guess, but man . . what a brutal experiment that would be.
China and Rome for sure. But Turkey is a terrible example of your point. Byzantium (or the Roman empire as they called themselves) was absolutely conquered and replaced by foreigners.
Historically, the Turkish nation was ridiculously multi-ethnic though, wasn't it? You have Altai, Chuvash, Kyrgyz, actual Turcomen, who knows how many others. "I'm proud of my Turkish heritage and have been since I obtained it last week".
And yeah, Rome died hard in the East. No denying that. But it's worth noting they had, century after century, so many opportunities to ally and rebirth with other peoples - Syrians, Macedonians, Bulgars, Russians, French - only to stab them right in the kidneys at the absolute worst time. Byzantium was like if you took Black Adder and made him into an entire country. Or Cersei Lannister, in the bad years.
Have you considered that perhaps there are way too many people due to the industralization explosion and some negative population growth might be a good thing.
First off, this is just your anti-human opinion. "overpopulation" isn't anything approaching a fact.
Beyond that though, have you considered the second order effects of population reduction? What happens when the non-productive share of the population becomes 80%? How many things we enjoy in our way of life that are predicated on increasing populations?
Is it really pro-human to want to live like factory-farmed cattle? Nobody ever seems to engage with the fact that the population shot up, what, 10+ times in the last 200 years.
I'll happily engage with the fact. It's great news! Humans are awesome, all my favorite entities are humans! Everything good about my life was provided by me (a human) or another human. Hope it 10x's again!
> her voice quavered recalling women who killed themselves after G.I.s who had taken them as common-law wives subsequently abandoned them and their children.
That would explain a lot if the same thing was occurring there
I don't think there's that much backstory to it. Likely just a reference to the large number of thinly veiled sex work that goes on in most cities that people turn a blind eye too. Is easy to comment on something that happened 80 years ago where most of the individuals are dead. Talking about sex work that goes on today in your own city hits a lot closer to home.
Few people want to talk about how the prohibition on sex work in the US pushes it into the black market and contributes to sexual slavery, human trafficking, and abuse.
"It’s a long-buried part of South Korean history"
This is factually wrong. The geopolitical driven sex trade is a big issue in common Korean discourse (e.g. newspapers, social media, politics, etc). I would say that it and the historical victimhood native are overemphasized in Korean society. They are a strong country now, no need to ruminate in the past.
It's only long-buried to Americans. I barely follow South Korean discourse, but I've talked about this with my Korean friends on multiple occassions. It's also not a mystery for Okinawans who regularly protest about American soldiers raping Okinawan women.
Nor is it a mystery why Phuket and Bangkok have a giant sex industry now. That sex industry got a huge boost from American soldiers during Vietnam. There was obviously prostitution in Thailand before the Vietnam War, but I've read at least two historical accounts about Thailand during the Vietnam War and they both talked about the influence of American GIs on the sex trade there.
Hell. Contemporary Italian historians talk openly about American GIs raping Italian women in WWII. There is no mystery in any of this for the locals. It's just contemporary Americans that are ignorant.
I think there's an important line between expecting something and condoning it. Rape is a predictable result of War for many of the reasons you mentioned, and should be understood as such. To do otherwise would be hiding from reality.
However, that doesn't make it a good thing. It is something to be mitigated to the extent possible in the context of other objectives. Referring to complaints as yapping simply minimizes another aspect of the hell that is Warfare.
The West German government created a report on the incidence of rape by occupying powers.
Investigators did massive interviews, surveys, etc.
The numbers for non-Soviet troops were low enough one could claim the rapes would have occurred regardless of whether the war happened.
An American soldier could be executed for raping a German woman. However, it was 100% legal for him to rape his wife.
By separating them from the one woman they were allowed to rape, and surrounding them with women they were strongly forbidden from raping, the war might very well have decreased it.
The same thing happened in France when American GIs were stationed there during WWII. I'd recommend "What Soldiers Do" by Mary Louise Roberts if you're interested in the details.
44 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 96.5 ms ] threadThey could simply let in 100,000 immigrants to fix the growth rate. I know it's not as simple as that in a society like Korea's, but 100k is perfectly manageable for such a large country. Take primarily young people with some useful level of education. They'll work, learn the language, marry, and start new families that become primarily Korean.
Both of these countries now have ethnical enclaves, thanks to multiculturalism. So I'd say yes.
According to Google, Russia's rate is -0.4%, this might be the last war they can afford.
China didn't end their one-child policy out of a great love for children.
But if they did, and for whatever reason none of those who has emigrated from Korea wanted to go back to the old country, there's a whole extra Korea just on the northern border, and they used to be the same country…
(Of course South Korea's case is very particular because they actually have an enormous reserve of eager potential immigrants who already speak the language, living just across their land border, an hour away from Seoul. The problem is that the other side of the border won't let anyone go.)
Anyway, when you bring in young single people, the primary cultural diffusion is through their eventual children. They will be Korean in a way that the immigrant parent might never personally feel.
to reduce the NK situation to "they won't let anyone go" is also disingenuous. even if you ignore that the US refuses to allow any more meaningful peace so it can justify a continued military presence halfway across the globe, the US and South Korea are clearly more powerful and wealthy. clearly they are in a better position than NK to make concessions and pave the way for integration.
Current fertility rate in Korea is 0.78/woman
Gen1 = 100 Gen2 = 78 Gen3 = 60 Gen3 = 46
Gen 1 - 100, Gen 2 - 39, Gen 3 - 16, Gen 4 - 6
And cease to exist is a bit dramatic, certainly populations will decline given the current replacement rates in many westernized countries, but they aren't going to disappear. They will decline to some lower steady state, but nowhere near zero.
Great piece, btw.
And yeah, Rome died hard in the East. No denying that. But it's worth noting they had, century after century, so many opportunities to ally and rebirth with other peoples - Syrians, Macedonians, Bulgars, Russians, French - only to stab them right in the kidneys at the absolute worst time. Byzantium was like if you took Black Adder and made him into an entire country. Or Cersei Lannister, in the bad years.
Beyond that though, have you considered the second order effects of population reduction? What happens when the non-productive share of the population becomes 80%? How many things we enjoy in our way of life that are predicated on increasing populations?
That would explain a lot if the same thing was occurring there
but, info?
I'm totally out of the loop on this one. What's the backstory?
Few people want to talk about how the prohibition on sex work in the US pushes it into the black market and contributes to sexual slavery, human trafficking, and abuse.
Nor is it a mystery why Phuket and Bangkok have a giant sex industry now. That sex industry got a huge boost from American soldiers during Vietnam. There was obviously prostitution in Thailand before the Vietnam War, but I've read at least two historical accounts about Thailand during the Vietnam War and they both talked about the influence of American GIs on the sex trade there.
Hell. Contemporary Italian historians talk openly about American GIs raping Italian women in WWII. There is no mystery in any of this for the locals. It's just contemporary Americans that are ignorant.
The parent post made a claim about the emphasis and relevance.
I think there's an important line between expecting something and condoning it. Rape is a predictable result of War for many of the reasons you mentioned, and should be understood as such. To do otherwise would be hiding from reality.
However, that doesn't make it a good thing. It is something to be mitigated to the extent possible in the context of other objectives. Referring to complaints as yapping simply minimizes another aspect of the hell that is Warfare.
Investigators did massive interviews, surveys, etc.
The numbers for non-Soviet troops were low enough one could claim the rapes would have occurred regardless of whether the war happened.
An American soldier could be executed for raping a German woman. However, it was 100% legal for him to rape his wife.
By separating them from the one woman they were allowed to rape, and surrounding them with women they were strongly forbidden from raping, the war might very well have decreased it.