this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025

277 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51904 readers

1700 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

277

Over 4,000 schools shut down nationwide as student numbers plunge - The Korea Times (www.koreatimes.co.kr)

submitted 2 weeks ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

More than 4,000 elementary, middle and high schools across Korea have shut their doors as the country’s student population shrinks, new data shows.

According to the Ministry of Education’s latest figures, revealed on Sunday by Rep. Jin Sun-mee of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, since 1980, 4,008 schools under 17 regional education offices nationwide have closed as of March this year. During the period, the number of enrolled students decreased from 9.9 million to 5.07 million.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

since 1980, the number of enrolled students decreased from 9.9 million to 5.07 million.

That's half the student in 45 years!

Korea’s birthrate ― the lowest in the world with the total fertility rate remaining below 0.8

Meaning it's getting even worse!!

These numbers are insane, I've heard that South Korea is working like crazy to make robots that can help lift the burden of taking care of the elderly. But I wasn't aware it was this bad!!

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 65 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

They have the lowest birth rates in the world, beating Japan by some margin. Since most of the world is heading that direction, is important to watch how these countries handle the issue, so we can prepare better

[–] riskable@programming.dev 61 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (13 children)

SK is not going to be a good example because, in addition to the usual reasons for a declining birth rate, they also have some pretty extreme racism, sexism, and a work culture that even worse than Japan in many ways. Why would you want to have kids in South Korea‽

Let's say you do have a wife and kids... Good luck getting home to see them on time on the regular!

What's incredible is that the government's stance on this situation is that it is preserving their culture. What they really mean is that they're keeping out foreigners and not cross-breeding with the riffraff (which is... The rest of the world).

They will "preserve" themselves right into extinction.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 2 weeks ago

There's a reputation amongst the air force that if you're deployed to korea you'll come back married to a local, they really don't want to live in korea

[–] FosterMolasses@leminal.space 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, if anything they should only be looked to as examples. Then do the exact opposite lol

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Most other countries do their best to create environments that are hostile to children, but in a different way.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago

I basically agree. It's hostile to be one and it's not particularly friendly to afford one either. Half my friend group lives with their parents still because I'm getting a job won't let them afford a place to live, which is an absurd statement but also just true.

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

And hardline anti immigration.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't forget who's their neighbour. North Korea might win without shooting a single bullet.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It would be pretty wild if the Korean reunification was accomplished due to the complete demographic collapse of South Korea.

Though, NK isn’t doing that much better, coming in with a fertility rate somewhere between 1.3 and 1.4, which is somewhat unusual when compared to other countries with extreme poverty.

[–] riskable@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The population of North Korea is approximately 26.5 million while South Korea is around 51.7 million. North Korea has already overtaken the South in total number of births per year (~340,000 VS ~250,000 in the South).

If the current trend continues (which I doubt it will), that means North Korea's population will overtake South Korea some time around 2090-2100.

Instead, what's going to happen is South Korea will have a regime collapse and then they're going to have a "come to Korea" moment (like a "come to Jesus" moment, but Korean-themed and much more literal). There's all sorts of things they can do to improve their situation practically overnight (from a geopolitical perspective) but they've so far refused to do so (for racist reasons).

Either they're going to fortify their population with foreign stock or they're going to demonstrate "the superiority of the Korean race" by going extinct.

[–] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Many of them think preserving their culture is more important (or dignified) than extinction.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

I think it has a very simple explanation, but I doubt many people will agree with me.

I think it proves that humans simply do not have an inherent urge to procreate. Humans have the urge to have sex, sure, and for a long time having sex carried the consequence of having children, but they are not the same thing. When people are able to survive without children and have the CHOICE to not have children, many simply don't want to.

In the past people needed many children, because many of them died before adulthood, and they needed the rest to take care of them in old age. Women didn't have the right to say no and many needed husbands to provide for them, since they couldn't own their own property or even have jobs. When men wanted sex, women had to comply and without birth control they automatically got pregnant, whether they wanted to or not.

I think not having the option to choose, people had children because.. that's just the way it was.

Now people have a choice. And we see what choices they make.

I'm sure many people are going to argue that it is too expensive to have kids, but let's be honest here. Most humans on earth today are orders of magnitude more prosperous than 400 years ago, for example. If people really wanted kids, they'd have them.

Many people simply don't want kids and maybe it's time we finally acknowledge it.

There are only a few groups of people who still have lots of children: the very poor in underdeveloped countries and the very religious. And note that in many of these cases people don't really have a choice.

[–] Rainbowblite@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or people just can't afford to have them. Or they don't have reliable access to childcare. Or they are too afraid of the future to subject chuldren to whatever is coming. Or any number of social issue that could be fixed.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Housing used to be cheap enough that you could just have enough to have a family and without worrying about space, now housing yourself is a burden because we're forced to subsidize the lifestyles of the super rich

[–] wide_eyed_stupid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

But poor people used to have plenty of kids. And it's not like every child had a bright and happy future full of hope and certainty hundreds of years ago, what with wars, plagues, famines and whatever else. Terrible infant and maternal mortality rates. People still had kids. Because they kinda sorta didn't have a choice. Now they do.

Poor people are still poor. The world is still fucked up. Humans are still hating and murdering each other over bullshit. The specific situations may be different but it's pretty much the same shit. The difference is choice.

Edit: I am not saying that cost matters not at all, for everyone, but if it was really about cost then rich people would have more children than poor people and they most definitely don't.

[–] C1pher@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Fucking nailed it.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Japan was the first to have a fertility crisis, but they've slowed the issue a lot. Spain and Italy, for example, now have a lower fertility rate than Japan

I find fertility rate to be such a fascinating topic, because there is no simple explanation, although many people will suggest simple explanations

I've heard it's because of the cost of housing, but Japan fixed their housing crisis decades ago, and South Korea never had much of one, at least not compared to Canada, New Zealand, or the US

I've heard it's about how women are treated culturally, but then why would the fertility rate in places like Norway and Finland be dropping so dramatically?

And I've heard it's a reaction to dystopic late-stage capitalism, but then why is the fertility rate dropping so rapidly in North Korea?

The general explanation of difficult economic conditions doesn't seem to hold up when you look at a place like the Korean peninsula. There was a great famine in North Korea during the '90s - the arduous march - where millions died in only a couple years. The fertility rate remained far higher during that than it is now. South Korea had far worse economic conditions than it has now, but had a far higher fertility rate

My hypothesis is that it's related to some form of pollution. Obviously there are many contributing factors, but it's interesting to me that the lowest birth rates are all in countries around major manufacturing; especially technology manufacturing. South Korea, Taiwan, and China all have the lowest birth rates in the world. Many European countries like Spain and Italy aren't far behind. Both areas have the highest concentration of high-tech manufacturing

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 8 points 2 weeks ago

It's really simple: kids are a chore. Once you remove the economic and social pressure to have kids most people will opt out of the experience and do more interesting things instead. In developing countries economic pressure exists (kids support parents when they are old) but in developed countries only social pressure is left. Once it becomes socially acceptable not to have kids people just stop. In some countries like France kids are still a status symbol so people try to have 2 kids. In other countries kids are used mostly for socializing: when all your friends become parents it's hard to hang out with them without kids because all gatherings become kid parties. Most couple have one kid because that's enough to be included. But as more people don't have kids it's easier to find friends without kids to do things together and another motivation is gone. There was also a pretty big shift in how people approach childless couples. Asking "when will you have kids" is becoming a faux pas because people are more aware of fertility issues so another source of social pressure is gone. The truth is that even in perfect financial situation few people will have more then 2 kids (just look at the stats). In less than perfect situation people decide to have 1 or 0.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

It’s a neoliberal myth that your society needs to constantly be growing..ie there need to be more younger people than older people.

[–] Statick@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Kurzgesagt did a great video about this

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

You are right, that is a great video, very well made and spot on correct.
The video shows Norway having by far the highest benefits for families with children, so I looked it up to see if it works, but their fertility rate remains very low at only 1.4!

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Elextra@literature.cafe 15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I'm sure it didnt help that they were trafficking kids out of the country.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

Oh no if only someone under the age of 60 had an idea to fix this and were allowed any amount of wealth or power to fix this.

[–] Lembot_0006@programming.dev 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Stop eating Korean students: they're endangered species nowadays!

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 5 points 2 weeks ago

But they are so good barbecued

[–] Elshender@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Kurzgesagt did a video on how South Korea will probably collapse due to their massively low birth rate.

https://youtu.be/Ufmu1WD2TSk

Soon there will be massive amounts of unemployed elderly, with no one to take care of them.

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No there won’t. The reason their birth rates are low is because they are so wealthy.

Low birth rates are sold to us as bad by neoliberals/capitalists because they believe that growth is the only way out of every problem. Unlimited growth is a terrible blunt instrument that’s basically created the unsustainable and unequal monster we live in today in the west.

Fact is that depopulation is the reality of the future and we should keep and eye on South Korea so we can learn from what they do.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How does being wealthy cause low birth rates? Maybe the other way (less population causes concentration of wealth or maybe I'm so busy making money I don't have time to make babies) but I don't see wealth causing low birth.

Are you saying people are thinking "look at this 6 figure bank account, we shouldn't have any children, we just need to increase it to 7"

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How does being wealthy cause low birth rates?

Pretty simple actually. When you are impoverished, you need a lot of kids for two main reasons: 1) when you're too poor to develop a health-care system, you have alot of kids so that your society still functions after a few kids die off due to a lack of affordable and accessible health care; and 2) you need a high population to do all the labor needed for you and your tribe to survive.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

True, as I think about it, it may be an inverse parabolic function. Low wealth is lots of kids(need help to survive) , sustainable wealth low kids(I can support myself but no more) , high wealth high kids(I'm so great my genes must be passed on and I have the means to do so) ...

[–] bystander@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

This has been a common pattern globally. A lot of other wealthy countries only have stable (desired for economic growth) population numbers/growth only because of large scale immigration. ie. US and Canada. Which countries like South Korea, Japan, or China are still quite strict on.

Doesn't help that child raring has become exceedingly expensive per child as well in wealthy countries.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In a lot of places a parent working is basically pointless if they pay for childcare. A daycare near me was 600 a week. And that was only from 330(after school got out) to 600. If you work 9-5 but school gets out at 330 about 15 dollars per hour of your pay goes to daycare. If you make less than 20 an hour is that even worth working?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

high wealth high kids

Even the most wealthy have 2 kids on average. Some famous rich people have more but the birth rate among the top 1% is still below replacement level.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Basically

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

It’s not just one reason…I’m speaking broadly.

…but you can basically graph birth rates inversely with wealth.

[–] Formfiller@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Disrespect women and make life a dystopian hellscape….no children for you

load more comments