I want to point out that the linked article is hyperbolic (as most “Japanese people aren’t having kids/sex/etc.” articles are), and its title is outright misleading.

It claims that Japan has the lowest birth rate ever. And while it may have the lowest number of births, that is to be expected in any country with a birth rate below replacement - I.e basically the entire developed world.

In fact, as opposed to the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Japan’s fertility rate has actually been increasing for some years now. See details here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPDYNTFRTINJPN

I really wish this meme would die, but it obviously drives clicks so people keep publishing it.

Thanks for this.

It seems to have started going up in 2005. That's really interesting and unexpected. Has anyone proposed an explanation? I know they've been trying to encourage people to form families for a while. Maybe some of their measures have worked?

These articles never mention it, but I do think waifu culture contributes to the issue.

I personally never looked for a partner because I'd rather spend more time watching anime.

I'm single and 40 and I have no interest in dating because I would 100x rather be in my workshop building keyboards than out meeting people.

Honestly, I feel kinda guilty about it. Shouldn't the people who care so much about their craft that they forgo relationships be precisely the kind that we'd want to preserve the genes of?

Do genes really matter all that much? Speaking as a typical armchair expert here. Judging from a few of the latest pop-sci books on heredity, I was under the impression that culture and nurture play a much greater role: high quality medicine, food rich in nutrients, good education available to all.

There's an interesting anecdote to support it. When the Soviet Union (with all its faults) was established, it has provided education to much broader masses of the population than ever before. You know how it turned out? When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap" didn't stop them from getting a degree and becoming bright scientists.

> Do genes really matter all that much?

Yes.

> Judging from a few of the latest pop-sci books

That's not really much better than “judging from my newspaper horoscope”.

> I was under the impression that culture and nurture play a much greater role: high quality medicine, food rich in nutrients, good education available to all.

Those play a huge role in whether genetic potential will be reached, genetics play a huge role in the actual outcome given similar environment.

> When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap"

You describe an socioeconomic handicap, not a genetic one, so it doesn't really say anything about the effects of genetics.

How much genes matter vs culture depends on the variance of each of those factors in the sampled population. You aren't going to win a Nobel prize if you are a dog, no matter how top-quality your education. You aren't going to win a Nobel prize if you are a feral child, no matter how high your IQ is. That's how much both culture and genetics matter.

> Shouldn't the people who care so much about their craft that they forgo relationships be precisely the kind that we'd want to preserve the genes of?

Why?

I'd rather preserve the genes of the people who care so much about human relationships that they forego any craft, but neither extreme is really optimal.

I think they are beneficial genes for society. I imagine much of the scientific and technological development of humanity was thanks to obsessive types.

Genes that make people form families rather than work in their craft are not exactly in a bad place, so excuse me for not being concerned about them.

I think about this a lot. It seems that there must be some benefit to society from having certain members contribute but not reproduce. Obviously, from a purely darwinistic point of view, you would think that biological organisms that don't want to reproduce would have been bred out of the gene pool a long time ago. However, to answer your question, your parents had a child that cares intensely about their craft, so maybe it doesn't matter in the long run.

Oh the evolutionary answer is easy. If your parents have a gene that can make you behave in a way that reduces the chance of you reproducing, but changes your behavior in such a way that increases the chance of your kin surviving, then that gene is in good position to spread in the population through your siblings.

Of course that doesn't work so well when the average fertility rate is less than 2 children per couple.

Also, the same gene can sometimes have a positive and negative effect on your chances of reproducing at the same time. For instance, suppose there's a gene that makes you want to work out instead of have sex. That might just increase your chances more than decrease in an environment where you need strength to survive (or that partners are attracted to that).

That's the evo argument for the "gay uncle" (et al) as a noncompetitive but good to have around person. I'm not sure it's true, but it's a tale as old as at least the 90's.

evolution hasn't caught up with what are actually good traits in this current society

This really is mistaking the symptoms for the cause.