Isekai Taneuma

In 2019, the world population exceeded 770 million. It is said that the momentum will surpass 9.7 billion in 2005 and 10.9 billion in 2011, without knowing that it will remain. How many more humans will mankind continue to grow if we keep doing this? Naturalists who are concerned about balance with other organisms and environmental issues will not be interested.

But the pace of population growth is slowing down. Since 1960, when the world's population exceeded 3 billion, the period for population to grow by 1 billion people has been gradually shorter, but the pace has finally begun to reverse at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Some researchers predict that, rather than increasing the population, the world population will be overwhelmed and will start to decline.

Around 1987, when Japan's population exceeded 5 billion, there was also a bubble climax in the cool air, and everyone thought that the population would continue to grow. As with television every day, some scholars were convinced with their faces that the world's population would surpass 20 billion instead of 10 billion in the twenty-first century, fueling that there would eventually be no land to buy in narrow Japan.

And surprisingly, everyone believed it. If this continues, people will no longer be able to live in Tokyo, which is extremely concentrated. Instead of renting a four-and-a-half tatami mat room, it's best to rent a studio between the three tatami mats. Even if the bubble could play, everyone still thought so. We need to relocate the capital and get out of the region as soon as possible.

But what about the current situation? Certainly, there is a feeling that unipolar concentration has gone further, but the whole population of Japan is overwhelmed, and it is now a treatment that must be done by foreign workers. Nobody expected the Japanese to decline so rapidly back then.

Of course, politicians weren't just staring. Support for childcare was provided in order to combat the decline in the number of children. However, a lot of things like loose education and child allowances were over sometime, and even if the government talked about this, it only had the result of letting them know that it would not work.

After all, raising children costs money, and someone has to support them, but nobody can support them because they are the most productive families.

Instead, I heard voices that it was simply bad that politicians were giving preference to the elderly, who were voting fields, but the actual problem was that childcare support was there. Rather, since children were born in Bang Bang in an era when there was no such thing, can we only say that the times have changed? What are you talking about? I'm going to get mad at this guy....

The conversation has changed, but the United States has experimented with child-rearing in various ways because it has become a social experiment in most cases. It may be historically shown that the quality of education results in a lifetime wage gap. For example, a follow-up study of children raised in District A and children raised in District B revealed a clear wage gap.

Speaking specifically of what this means, there was a difference in lifetime wages between black and white school districts. Interestingly, there was also a gap between the white people who lived in these black school districts and the black people who went to the white school districts.

It goes without saying why this difference occurs, because there is a difference in academic ability. In a school full of black people, many poor families don't study that much, so they can only get grades there and can only get jobs there in the future. However, many Caucasian schools have excellent grades, and as a result, they are highly educated and have a high probability of finding employment in large companies. In other words, if you get the same education in the same school as the white people, the poor black people will have a chance to crawl up.

That's why recent human rights activists are shouting out loud at black and hispanic people to reduce white borders on everything.

But are you sure? To tell the truth, academic ability has a considerable genetic influence. Since the existence of the gene became known, it is clear from the research results of many biologists. Though there is the word that I know my family, in fact, there are some findings that Tokyo University students' families have high incomes. I'm sorry to say, but geniuses are not born of stupid parents. The difference that cannot be filled by the environment alone has existed since before it was born.

So, in this example, you have to think about what kind of white parents live in black school districts. The same is true, of course, of black people. Originally, there was an intelligence gap in the genes of the people who lived in that school district.

But when you say that, it's not hard to imagine what the Liberals are saying these days. They must be attacking like crazy. In fact, Nobel Prize scholar James Watson said that black IQ was genetically low, causing a lot of confusion.

As for him, he was not malicious, he spoke with all sorts of evidence, but no one listened to such excuses. He was hunted down and ended up in poverty. Since then, it has been taboo to talk about the difference in IQ by race. No matter the difference in race or intelligence, it is no longer acceptable except the idea that every human being has the right to the same education.

However, it goes without saying that when we educate people to reach out to everything that is equal and delayed in this way, the results are not good. Nobody wants to sum up what happened to the actual loose education in Japan, so it's not clear, but all I hear is scattered.

I laugh, but as a result of the athletic event that everyone is going to goal together, there are research reports that they have become "lacking" adults in the feeling of being compassionate and kind to others. Full weekly holidays also had a considerable impact. The point is, there was a difference in the way I spent Saturday without school... and that was a big difference between a rich kid and a kid who wasn't. Would it be okay to make the preparatory school free in order to fill it?

Let's get back to it. It is true that education affects lifetime earned wages. I know that the difference between high school and college graduates is clear, and I wonder if anyone actually feels that the presence or absence of education is related to the efficiency of work. So, we have to educate ourselves, but by the way, why are we educated?

There are also topics such as industrial development and national strategies, but the general public's feeling is that they will be happy.

When we were kids, if we turned on TV, there would always be an ideal home there. A handsome husband from a first-class university who works for a large company. A beautiful wife of a good wife, a wise mother and a professional housewife. One or two children live in big houses or stylish apartments in the suburbs. It's also a classic to have a white dog. They cheat and murder while having a communist conversation.....

We vaguely believed that this would happen to us in the future. I thought it was impossible for a top university or a large corporation to get married at least.

But what happened to reality? Many people still live in studio apartments in the city after 30 years, or are like parents.

Some of you may have great wings like leaving a first-class university to work for a large company and riding around in a luxury car. But isn't someone like that giving up marriage somewhere? Or don't you think that even if you get married, you're giving up your child or making one?

Occasionally asked by the alumni to look around, people with families are always getting married early, and next year their oldest son will go to middle school and talk about the growth of their children. We are listening nicely, with frustration inside. I wonder why there's so much difference...?

Well, I want you to think about it. You are a very common boy born into a normal family. I was good at physical education in elementary school and went to a local public secondary school without thinking about taking any examinations in particular. I struggled a little to take the high school exam and managed to get into a private high school within walking distance of home. There is such experience, and in the university entrance exam, I studied hard not to bother my parents, and passed the local station valve university. At the university, I played around with the reaction, but I did not stay for four years, graduated safely, and got a job at a local company.

Well, you have a girlfriend you met at college. I think I can get married, but will I propose to her now? Probably not. I think we should start with the company that joined the company and consolidate our feet so that it is okay to have a family.

But when was that? Because it is said that it is three years on the stone, everyone thinks vaguely that it is about three years, but you will only know the work that can be done in three years. From the seniors' point of view, I finally finished OJT. In fact, by the time you think you can eat at that job, is it about ten years old?

How old are you then? If I had graduated straight from college, I would say I was 32 years old, still young and working well. But will she wait until she is that age? If you're dating from college, it's probably not strange if it's been more than ten years and you've broken up in the meantime. I wish I could have her again soon, but there aren't many places to meet a 32-year-old bachelor. At that time, if I had been married earlier, this wouldn't have happened.....

Nevertheless, if we were in the same position as him, maybe we would all make the same choices. Because education is an investment. The cost of education is a prepayment of lifetime earned wages. Isn't it natural to think that if we don't collect the high educational expenses that some people have invested up to graduate school, it won't suit the discount? Otherwise, why have you spent so much time studying?

And it takes about 10 years for the prospect of recovery to be realized, which is the main thrust of the previous story. At least, the world isn't sweet enough to stand up after three years out of college. I used to marry and raise children from my 20s, but it was only possible because it was an era where economic growth could be expected with seniority, and it is quite risky to do the same in this era.

It doesn't mean that competition was more intense in the past. Young people today have the same education, can use computers and smartphones as much, and are competing with low-wage neighboring countries. From their point of view, I don't want to be told anything by the generation that had everything finished in Japan alone.

... anyway, I had the prospect of getting married, but now I don't have anyone to marry. We're all in a hurry to find a partner, but of course we don't find one that's convenient. And even if we finally find him, he'll be no longer alive enough to have many children. At best we can give birth to one.

Of course, unlike in the past, we know that medical technology is advancing so much that we can give birth safely even when we are close to 50 years old. Rather than saying so, for example, if you had a child for the first time at the age of 40, how old would you be when the child became an adult? I hope you're celebrating your new year.

And parenting doesn't end there. As I said earlier, by the time my children graduate from college, they will have finally become independent, they will be over 30. At that time, the parents were seventy years old. No, future children may take longer to grow up. When time passes and children have families and are trying to raise children, if they succeed, they die. How many children do you think you will have?

In other words, the cause of declining births and ageing is this late marriage, which is a disease that developed countries have. We have studied hard to be happy. If the people's academic ability improves, the lifetime earned wages will rise, and thus the country's GDP will rise. If educated citizens compete and the overall level of intelligence increases, industrial development can also be expected. In fact, the population explosion of the twentieth century was due to advances in technology to feed a large population. The food situation improved, and advances in medical technology made it difficult for children to die.

But it takes time to adapt to a more advanced society. The more intellectually we all become, the more competitive we become, the less easy it will be to do anything. Societies in which children were difficult to die and were prolific in death gradually changed to immortality and childbirth, and the time spent raising a single child increased. Ironically, as a result, the marriage became late and it became difficult to have children.

In 2019, the world population exceeded 770 million. It is said that the momentum will surpass 9.7 billion in 2005 and 10.9 billion in 2011, without knowing that it will remain. Looking at the numbers alone, it seems that the population is still growing... but if you look closely, between 2005 and 2100, the population has only grown by 1.2 billion people. Until then, it has slowed considerably, given that it has been about 12 to 3 years to increase the number of 1 billion people.

The breakdown is that while developed countries such as Japan will shift to population decline, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will double by 2005. After that, the population of developing countries will continue to grow, and the developed countries will be overwhelmed, according to current United Nations expectations.

But, as the Liberals say, if there is nothing to do with academic ability and genetics, will the countries that are now called developing countries become like us sooner or later? In other words, the wave of late marriages and declining births and aging should arrive unexpectedly quickly. In that case, the scenario of breaking through 10 billion people is also an unexpected scenario. Would the world population turn to decline at an earlier stage?

And I think it's very likely. That said, I have explained for a long time that declining birthrates and aging are not academic problems, but the social structure that accompanies them. As a result of academic improvement, if technology has progressed and it takes time to adapt, isn't it natural for societies that are benefiting from the same technology to experience the same thing?

And most human rights activists want Africa to be a society like developed countries. Hit James Watson, who said it wasn't desirable for Africa. Well, I suppose we can do that even with their prestige. I am not interested in what happens after the population decline.