With a record average fertility rate of 0.78 as of 2022, Korea is seeing more deaths than births can make up for. The aging population is becoming more of a reality for citizens. Still, the living environment does not seem to be making the necessary changes to foster a bigger population; on the contrary, it is becoming more exclusive as the number of no-kids and no-seniors establishments, as well as the number of Koreans that support them, are on the rise. Such "no-whoever" policies further deepen the divide amongst the Korean population, encouraging discriminatory attitudes towards any and every age group.

Though the debate surrounding this issue was reignited earlier this year, when a photo surfaced of a café with a sign on the door saying no seniors allowed, the polemic began when no-kids zones were first introduced to the country. Some of the arguments justifying the implementation of kids-free policies are in relation to the legal risks associated with kids’ unruly behavior, as well as the disturbances caused by it, which customers and business owners alike feel entitled not to have to experience. Similarly, others have also complained of occasions where elderly citizens caused trouble and discomfort for the people around them.

As understandable as it may be that these experiences were anything but enjoyable, the fault of no-whoever zones lies in its generalization of localized incidents, placing the blame on an entire age group instead of the person actually responsible. Whether it be a rebellious kid, a parent unwilling to discipline them, or an older person making everyone uncomfortable, their actions do not speak for their whole generation. To act as if they did is to unnecessarily punish an innocent person. Thus, the proposal of no-whoever zones is not a fit solution. Instead, it is one rooted in intolerance rather than empathy for the people who would be affected by these policies. What supporters of these zones fail to notice is that while they may have an outsider’s perspective on the effects of these policies now, that will not always be the case. If allowed to continue, business establishments will only grow more exclusionary. There are already such instances of no-20s or no-university students zones.

Some will argue that despite all of the possible risks associated with no-whoever zones, it is still within a business owner’s right to refuse entry to whomever they deem fit. Thus, the balance between an individual’s interest and respecting societal values and norms becomes the problem. Is it warranted to prioritize what the business owner wants, at the expense of a sector of the population? In most scenarios it is not. The most recent example concerns the vaccination requirement that establishments and their customers were obliged to follow to gain entry into spaces during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. While any person is within their right to refuse a vaccine, societal values of public health and preventing the spread of a disease take precedence. In a similar line of thought, though an individual may have a preference as to who they want on their premises, this is overridden by the globally accepted norm of non-discrimination.

The rise of no-whoever zones, however increasingly concerning, can still be reversed. In the path forward, hasty generalizations and stereotypes should be left behind, whilst at the forefront people should prioritize inclusivity, open dialogue, and understanding. Fostering unity instead of division is a crucial step to take in order to bridge generational gaps and create a more vibrant community. Without it, the country will not be able to tackle the even bigger issues of fertility rates and a diminishing population.