Talk:Aging of Japan

message: I think this should be merged with Demography of Japan#Age structure, maybe moving much of that content here and leaving a WP:SS stub there. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Jose João (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Elderly people in Japan? -Malkinann (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: From the article: Japan will need to raise its retirement age to 77 or admit 10 million immigrants annually between 2000 and 2050 to maintain its worker to retiree ratio.
Seriously??  That would mean 500 million immigrants.  I checked the source itself, and it does actually say that, but I have to wonder if it could be a mistake.  If it isn't, I can only assume it is based on some very unlikely assumptions, such as that immigrants never have children, and therefore need to constantly be "replaced" with more and more new immigrants.  Or maybe they are considering the immigrants' children to also be "immigrants".  Even if that is true, though, I don't see how it could be necessary to bring that many immigrants in (doubling Japan's population in a little over a decade, then continuing for thirty years more), just to maintain the status quo.  Not unless 10 million Japanese were retiring each year, in which case I guess the whole country would be retired in a few years.  Aside from the hilariousness of suggesting an already crowded nation would do well to let its population increase to 5 times its current level in fifty years, the numbers just don't add up ... or rather, they add up way too much to be real.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  500 million immigrants in Japan? 

message: This article cites Raymond Kurzweil's 2005 "singularity" book as evidence for the claim that nanotechnology may soon be used to "restore the typical person's body and mind to that of a typical 30-year-old." 
However, Kurzweil's book is not a reliable source for the statement. As far as I understand, the book uses simple projection models based on the speed of past technological progress to anticipate further fantastic (some would say utopian) technological achievements in the next decade or so. The book's approach is problematic because it quantifies "progress" in an ambiguous way, and doesn't take into account realistic limitations to any exponential progresses in nature (which includes human society). 
Further, the citation does not elaborate what this "restoration" would entail, or how realistic such expectations are compared to what is currently actually known about human biology and aging processes.
--83.217.111.202 (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agreed.  I have removed this section from the article, if someone has a valid reason for its reintroduction, please discuss it here. Zabby1982 (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird citation to Kurzweil's book 

message: I'm confused by the part:
:those estimates are updated at 23.1% (as of February 2011) are already 65 and over
Could it be rewritten to make the meaning clearer? Ricklaman (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting part of the first paragraph 

message: Could a section be created for references made to this subject in popular culture?  I've seen it referenced in several works of fiction, sometimes in passing, sometimes as a motivation behind bizarre government acts that provide the basis of the story.  For instance, there are a number of games and anime in which a man is forced into an uncomfortable situation by the government's attempts to force increased birth rates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.255.122.17 (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aging of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227192352/http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/depopulationeuropejapan.htm to http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/depopulationeuropejapan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: * More information on how the aging of Japan might affect their future
* Dependency ratios
* Plans for more immigration into Japan
* Stage Japan is in on the demographic transition model
* Add more visuals like an age population Victoriali2 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Additions to the Article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: RESULT.  Tweedle (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Japan's Ageing →  – Restore previous title and follow the naming standard used across :Category:Ageing by country. The rename was done by User:LizNeoCNA, an editor with a few dozen edits, most of which are related to page moves. Alansohn (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Strong support - Be bold and change it back, the first move was not discussed so all rights to do so. Although I would probably go for the American spelling of 'Aging'. Tweedle (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone ahead and re-moved it back to its original title. Tweedle (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , thanks for taking care of this. I had tried a move but the existence of the redirect prevented that. I would have used "Aging", but the version with the "e" seems to prevail. Thanks again! Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries! :) Tweedle (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 January 2023