We took our 3 year old to Japan and had a difficult time entertaining them with our usual cop-out: playgrounds. Japanese public playgrounds are few and far between, and when we did find them they were typically old and sad (a swing or monkey bars and a metal slide). The swings we found were abnormally low to the ground, making it difficult for kids to actually pump their legs and most end up standing on them instead. We did some research into it, wondering if Japanese people felt as frustrated as we were trying to physicslly entertain a kid.<p>We came across this interesting piece about physical differences between kids in 2007 and kids in 1985. In short, the average 5 year old in 2007 had the athletic abilities of a 3 year old in 1985. Granted this data is rather old, but anecdotally we did notice our 3 year old playing on equipment specified for (and mostly being used by) the much older children. <a href="https://poh.ngo/en/the-state-of-play-in-japan/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://poh.ngo/en/the-state-of-play-in-japan/</a><p>The best public and highly used playgrounds we found were in Kyoto (near the train museum), in Osaka called the mountain slides (near the Children's Plaza), and in Arashiyama at the top of the Monkey Park hill. Aside from that, paid entertainment was the way to go.<p>Happy to share more if anyone is interested in the experience, but I'd rather stop there for now.
Why though? I've never been able to understand what it is that makes Japanese people so reluctant to form families and have children<p>EDIT: you can read the full article here: <a href="https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/more-than-40-of-japanese-women-may-never-have-children-1.1956657" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/more-than-40-of-japanese-women-m...</a> but it does not explain further.
The first question, I think, would be: if 40% will never have children, and if that remains true into the far future, how long before there are no Japanese left?<p>But the immediate followup question should definitely be, why would it stay at 40%, when it can go higher? Every woman who (for whatever reason) does not have children exerts a cultural influence on those around her, normalizing the behavior. Making it seem less out of place. Inadvertently teaching young girls within their social sphere that this is option, an acceptable one.<p>If this number does go higher, the problem accelerates... it's not necessarily some theoretical demise of their nation centuries from now.
My hot take, as we approach the equilibrium population in the world (perhaps the sustainable carrying capacity), fertility rates will naturally decrease. Some countries have already exceeded their equilibrium populations; therefore, their fertility rates will decrease below replacement rates for some time until they reach equilibrium (which is not 0, which fearmongers may promote). As climate change progresses, it may be the equilibrium population is even lower than we expect right now.
It is amazing/scary how wide the gulf in comprehension between the parents and non-parents of the world is becoming. Both groups can reasonably argue the other is being selfish as part of some core moral failing, and both seem to consider their choice of group membership to be the universal cure to the woes afflicting the other.<p>Then you have those who genuinely have no choice stuck in the middle of this nonsense.<p>Ultimately society is going to have to accept some higher proportion of people being childless than in the 19th century, and work out how to maintain an appropriate balance that enables everyone to have a shot at actually leading a fulfilling life without the moralising in either direction getting to critical mass.
The fact that Japan has not always been seen as the most immigration friendly/multicultural country greatly exacerbates their demographic issues.<p>Somehow, I don't see how this can be turned around...