Drink to smartphones lowering birth rates for World Population Day and National Mojito Day

Happy World Population Day and National Mojito Day! Like last year, I'm combining the two today. I begin the holiday observances with the Financial Times explaining Why birth rates are falling everywhere all at once.

Smartphones and a marked change to our digital media environment are part of the reason for the demographic shift changing our world, including how low birth rates are shrinking the workforce. Chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch presents his lastest findings on this challenge faced by most nations[.]

There's a lot to chew on here. I've been writing a lot about government policy and economics, but I don't think I've mentioned non-medical technologies in the context of falling birth and fertility rates before. That's certainly a "scifi is now" topic. I also haven't discussed lack of independent housing as a factor in demography, although I've certainly blogged about housing and real estate during the past 15+ years. I think I'll be adding those perspectives to my writing in the future.

By the way, I consider "Pennsylvania economist Jesús Fernandez-Villaverde call[ing] fertility decline the question of our time, with most other problems flowing downstream of it" to be the result of a perspective I criticized in Meditations on sustainability, part 1.

[E]conomy is dependent on society, which is in turn dependent on the environment. Without an environment, there is no society. Without a society, there is no economy. Those relationships put sustainability into perspective. They also show that the emphasis on economy above all is exactly backwards. No wonder we're in trouble.

That written, I'm not surprised the Financial Times would feature it. As I quoted from Yes, Prime Minister, "The Financial Times is read by people who own the country," in this case the U.K., so they would think it salient. As one of the commenters pointed out, "This video is for rich people. Everyone who's is struggling knows why we don't have kids." From my ecological perspective, resource use, if not outright depletion, and waste production, as exemplified by fossil fuels and climate change are the primary problems and everything flows downhill from them. As a biologist, I think limited resources primarily define carrying capacity, the maximum sustainable size of a population, and we should be examining those, especially their connections to the issues the economists identify.

DW News confronted the effect of technology on society directly when it asked Are smartphones killing birth rates worldwide?

The world is having fewer children and the pace of decline is happening much faster than expected. The reasons are complex and varied, from a lack of affordable housing to a lack of suitable partners. But could smartphones and modern tech be part of the problem? DW speaks to AI researcher Connor Leahy about how digital life may be reshaping relationships.

I was wondering if someone would bring up dating apps, the obvious technological solution to people finding partners, and Connor Leahy pointed out that their incentive is to keep people on the app, not find a permanent partner. Now I'm wondering if government matchmaking services are in our future. I suspect that would not be an unadulterated good and other causes would have to be addressed for them to be effective.

For what it's worth, the commenters to the video were hostile to the question, but I think that's because DW News didn't present the data supporting the inference, not that it helped the Financial Times video that much. Their commenters weren't as mean, but they were certainly skeptical. I'm not one of them; I think the researchers are onto something, at least as a contributing factor for the last 20 years.

I return to the U.S. for the third video, PBS NewsHour examining The potential impacts of the U.S. birth rate decline.

The U.S. fertility rate is at an all-time low, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers say this is part of a larger downward trend. Since 2007, the number of Americans having babies has dropped 23%, well below the replacement level, meaning not enough are being born to replace those who die. William Brangham discussed more with Brian Mann of NPR.

PBS NewsHour broadcast this segment and then uploaded it one month before the study on smartphones and birthrates came out, so it didn't include its findings. In that light, the decline in teen pregnancy might be less a result of good policy and more the effects of smartphones. That doesn't make it any less of an accomplishment, just an accidental one.

Reading this would be enough to make me drink if my diabetes hadn't made me lose interest in drinking, so it's time to celebrate with Michigan Public saying .

Inspired by Tracy Samilton's recent trip to Cuba, Tammy Coxen whipped up this stellar mojito - which we might claim is one of the tastiest in Michigan. Samilton explored the Michigan-Cuba connection during her time in Havana, so Coxen used white rum from the Ann Arbor Distilling Company to bring some Michigan flavor to this drink perfect for warmer weather. Cheers!

That's a wrap for today's double celebration. Stay tuned for the Sunday entertainment feature. I have an awards show my readers can vote in for free, as long as they are interested in horror and horror-adjacent science fiction movies and television.

Democrats are trying to rearrange the dates of their primaries and caucuses to make them more representative, a 'Groundhog Day' story

Groundhog Day reminded me not only of the Bill Murray movie, but also of John Oliver on primaries and caucuses for Groundhog Day, where the comedian and his writers advocated for reforms of the Presidential primary and caucus system to make it more small-d democratic and representative. That's been happening since 2016 as Wikipedia described in its entry about the 2020 Democratic primaries and caucuses.

On August 25, 2018, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) members passed reforms to the Democratic Party's primary process in order to increase participation[25] and ensure transparency.[26] State parties are encouraged to use a government-run primary whenever available and increase the accessibility of their primary through same-day or automatic registration and same-day party switching. Caucuses are required to have absentee voting, or to otherwise allow those who cannot participate in person to be included.[25]

Independent of the results of the primaries and caucuses, the Democratic Party, from its group of party leaders and elected officials, also appointed 771[a] unpledged delegates (superdelegates) to participate in its national convention.

In contrast to all previous election cycles since superdelegates were introduced in 1984, superdelegates will no longer have the right to cast decisive votes on the convention's first ballot for the presidential nomination. They will be allowed to cast non-decisive votes if a candidate has clinched the nomination before the first ballot, or decisive votes on subsequent ballots in a contested convention.[27][28] In that case, the number of votes required shall increase to a majority of pledged and superdelegates combined. Superdelegates are not precluded from publicly endorsing a candidate before the convention.

There were also a number of changes to the process of nomination at the state level. A decline in the number of caucuses occurred after 2016, with Democrats in Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Washington all switching from various forms of caucuses to primaries (with Hawaii, Kansas, and North Dakota switching to party-run "firehouse primaries"). This has resulted in the lowest number of caucuses in the Democratic Party's recent history, with only three states (Iowa, Nevada, and Wyoming) and four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and U.S. Virgin Islands) using them. In addition, six states were approved in 2019 by the DNC to use ranked-choice voting in the primaries: Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming for all voters; Iowa and Nevada for absentee voters.[29] Rather than eliminating candidates until a single winner is chosen, voters' choices would be reallocated until all remaining candidates have at least 15%, the threshold to receive delegates to the convention.[30]

Several states which did not use paper ballots widely in 2016 and 2018, adopted them for the 2020 primary and general elections,[31] to minimize potential interference in vote tallies, a concern raised by intelligence officials,[32] election officials[33] and the public.[34] The move to paper ballots enabled audits to start where they had not been possible before, and in 2020 about half the states audit samples of primary ballots to measure accuracy of the reported results.[35] Audits of caucus results depend on party rules, and the Iowa Democratic party investigated inaccuracies in precinct reports, resolved enough to be sure the delegate allocations were correct, and decided it did not have authority or time to correct all errors.

I think all these reforms helped, but 2020 revealed that still more needed to be done, as the Iowa Caucuses, already being considered as "a relic of the past," failed to produce a clear winner, as the results took almost a full month to tabulate fully and correctly, resulting in Bernie Sanders earning a plurality of votes, but Pete Buttigieg winning the most delegates. No wonder both of them claimed victory.

Worse yet, neither of them earned the Democratic nomination for President, despite them essentially tying in the New Hampshire Primary. That distinction went to Joe Biden.

Despite his un[der]performance, Biden would go on to win the nomination, becoming the first candidate to do so without winning Iowa since Bill Clinton in 1992. Additionally, with Biden defeating incumbent president Donald Trump in the general election, he became the first candidate to do so without finishing in the top 3 in Iowa since the conception of the caucuses in 1972.

On top of which, Biden showed that he didn't need New Hampshire, either.

Biden became the first Democratic candidate since Bill Clinton, and the third ever Democratic candidate,[c] to win the nomination without carrying either Iowa or New Hampshire, the first two states on the primary/caucus calendar.

On top of which, many in the Democratic Party have pointed out how unrepresentative both Iowa and New Hampshire are of the current Democratic electorate, so the party is trying to rearrange its primary calendar to reflect its voters. PBS NewsHour reported on that process in Democratic Party battles over rearranging its presidential primary calendar, uploaded, appropriately enough, on Groundhog Day.

Democrats will soon vote to rearrange their calendar for the presidential primaries in 2024 and beyond and it could have major ramifications for the party. The plan moves South Carolina to the top of the calendar and would be the first time in more than 50 years that Iowa and New Hampshire won’t be the first caucuses and primary. Lisa Desjardins reports.

Both guests agreed that the Democratic primary calendar should be rearranged to make it reflect the party's voters. They just disagree that the first state should be South Carolina, which has a history of voting more for moderates than progressives. FiveThirtyEight examined that possibility in What Would It Mean If SC Voted First In The Democratic Primary.

In Part 2 of this week’s FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast, the crew looks at how the Democratic Party's effort to rearrange its presidential primary calendar is going and discusses the impact this reassortment could have on candidate selection.

I agree with the general sense of the panel; neither New Hampshire nor Georgia will comply with the proposed changes. New Hampshire has the first primary of the Presidential country by state law and I think the Granite State won't move it. Also, these are changes that benefit the Democratic Party but not the Republican Party. The calendar in place up to 2020 suits them just fine, especially since Iowa and New Hampshire do reflect their voters. They have no motivation to go along with this reform.

The one state that is going along with the Democratic Party's plan is Michigan. CBS Detroit reported Michigan moves for early slot for 2024 presidential primary two days ago.

Michigan House Democrats voted Tuesday to move the state's presidential primary to the fourth week of February and become a part of a new group of states slated to lead off the Democratic party's presidential primary starting next year.

Michigan Radio reported on the next step: Whitmer signs law to make Michigan early primary state; still not clear if effective in time for 2024.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed a new law Wednesday that would bump Michigan up in the presidential primary process. Whitmer said the law would give the state’s voters a stronger voice in choosing the president, by counting their votes earlier.

But Republican leaders said their party’s rules mean that it could actually disenfranchise their primary voters. And, in either case, it’s still not clear if the law will take effect in time for the 2024 election.
...
The bill to move up the primary passed the state Legislature on a partisan vote, with Republicans objecting because they said it would hurt voters in their own primary. The Republican National Committee rules say most states cannot hold primary votes before March 1.
...
Under the state’s constitution, in order for a law to take immediate effect, it has to pass with a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. Because Republicans held out, SB 13 didn’t cross the threshold. That means it will now take effect 90 days after the end of this year’s legislative session.

To meet that deadline, Democratic leaders would have to adjourn the legislature no later than November 29. Currently, legislators are scheduled to be in session through the first few weeks of December.

So Michigan did its part, thanks to Democrats taking over control of the legislature and keeping control of the executive branch in Michigan, but it still might not take effect in time for 2024. It probably won't matter so long as Biden runs again. Just the same, stay tuned.

CBS News profiles Rashida Tlaib, likely to be one of first Muslim women in Congress

I told my readers to "Stay tuned for at least one entry a day about the election all the way through to November 7th."  Today's election story comes from CBS News: House candidate Rashida Tlaib looks to make history in the midterms.

Rashida Tlaib is on the verge of making history as she runs unopposed as the Democratic nominee for Michigan's 13th Congressional district. CBSN's Reena Ninan spoke to Tlaib, who would be one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress.

Reena Ninan asked Tlaib about a demonstration I covered in Trump greeted by protestors in Detroit.  Tlaib also protested another Trump campaign stop the next month, so she is no stranger to confronting him and his policies.  It was because of these protests that I cheered both her entering the contest to replace John Conyers and her winning the Democratic primary for the full two-year term.  I'm still cheering her on.

The CBS News story accompanying the video noted that Tlaib isn't really running unopposed.  She is facing a write-in campaign from Detroit City Council President Brenda Jones, a development Michigan Radio described as "unwelcome."  Jones won the primary for the special election to fill the rest of Conyers' term but lost to Tlaib for the regular election, thus preventing Tlaib from being the very first Muslim woman to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, just one of the first.  WDIV reported that John Conyers III is joining Jones as a write-in candidate.  Both of them lost to her in the primary.  I consider both of them to be sore losers and I hope and expect both to fail.  It helps that the Detroit Free Press has endorsed Tlaib.

I don't live in the 13th District (I live in the 9th with the 14th across the street), so I don't have a sign for her on my lawn.  Just the same, I'll post one for her on my blog.

Libertarians achieve 'major party' status in Michigan

I finished Greens win more offices than Libertarians in Michigan by writing "The Libertarians can take some consolation from achieving "major party" status, a topic I'll save for tomorrow."  The Greens may have elected more candidates to office, but the Libertarians won enough votes to play by the same rules as the Democrats and Republicans, at least in this state.  The Detroit News has the story.

Michigan Libertarians received enough votes to have their candidates listed in the next state primary election in August 2018.

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson earned Tuesday more than the 154,040-vote threshold necessary for the Libertarian Party of Michigan to participate in the August 2018 statewide primary.

The former Republican governor from New Mexico won 172,711 votes in Michigan, or 3.6 percent of the state’s total vote. That’s the largest percentage of votes captured by a third-party candidate since Ross Perot won 9 percent in 1996.

I thought 2016 would be a good year for minor party candidates.  This is yet another sign that it was.

The good news is that the Libertarians will have more visibility.  The voting public will get to see the party's candidates' names on the August primary ballot and the party will likely be eligible to participate in more debates.

The bad news is that this means the party will have to work much harder, as Michigan Radio reports.

[Michigan Libertarian Party Chairman Bill]Gelineau cautions [it] will be a “challenge” for the party to maintain ‘major party’ status.

“We’re going to have to find a candidate that runs for governor [in 2018] who’s going to be able to express those values and rally people to maintain that level,” says Gelineau.

Along with fielding strong candidates, Gelineau says Libertarians will also have to back ballot questions in keeping with their philosophy of believing in free enterprise and the free market system together with a tolerant social policy. He says that would include legalizing marijuana.

That issue would probably be a winner in this state, as it contributed to some of the good news from last week's election.  The problem won't be the legalization vote; I'm sure that will happen.  Instead, it would be qualifying for the ballot.  Doing so is more difficult now than it was just a few years ago.

Speaking of which, major party status and participation in the primaries means that Libertarians will have to qualify their candidates for Governor and the federal and state legislatures by petition instead of by convention.  Ballotpedia lists the number of signatures required depending on the population of the district.   For State House, that's a minimum of 200 signatures.  One candidate could probably collect those.  It gets tougher for U.S. House, where a minimum of 1,000 valid signatures are required.  That isn't guaranteed even for major party candidates, as Thaddeus McCotter found out the hard way in 2012.  The hurdle rests even higher for U.S. Senate and Governor, both of which will require 15,000 signatures.  That's going to be daunting for a party that is used to nominating people at a convention for all offices.

When Gelineau said that the Libertarian party organization would have to change to accomodate major party status, he wasn't kidding.  The Republicans and Democrats have clubs in most medium-sized or larger municipalities (Royal Oak, Southfield, Farmington Hills, and West Bloomfield each have their own Democratic clubs), and those are where the candidates get a lot of their petitions signed.  I don't know if the Libertarians have that level of local organization.  If they don't, they might need to create it in order to qualify their candidates for the ballot.  That might be interesting to watch.

Occupy Detroit and others campaign against petcoke

I mentioned petroleum coke or petcoke for the first time in this blog's history in Air pollution from cars doesn't just come out of a tailpipe.

After all, how clean is coal, or for that matter, petroleum coke, which might be burned in combination at the DTE plant in Monroe?  Not very.

While I have been remiss on this subject, Occupy Detroit is still active and posted Petcoke & the Detroit river to their YouTube channel this week.*

Just a few hundred yards from the offensive piles of carcinogenic petcoke by the shores of the Detroit river, people are catching fish to feed to their children. The poisonous byproduct from the refining of Canadian tar sands gives off a windblown dust that goes everywhere, including the river and ultimately the fish these people will eat.

Not only are activists educating residents, they're protesting, as Michigan Radio reports in Citizen groups flex some muscle in fight against Detroit's petroleum coke piles.

But that hasn’t stopped a whole movement from springing up—and gaining some ground in the global fight against tar sands oil.

Just this week, a small group of protesters stopped a Mack truck carrying pet coke in its tracks, just a few hundred feet from its destination on the Detroit River—a place where freighters load up and ship out to places all over the world.

Standing in the middle of the street, McKenzie Duke read a list of demands from activists and residents. They’ve watched the pet coke piles grow and shift for months—at times, spanning a half-dozen city blocks and reaching several stories high.
...
As for that blockade Duke was a part of this week--well, the protesters succeeded in stopping pet coke shipments for the day. And they got some direct attention from Detroit Bulk Storage personnel, who’ve promised an ongoing dialogue about their concerns.

I've been more than a bit pessimistic about protesting against the XL Pipeline in general, although President Obama's statement on climate change this week was encouraging.  However, I'm all for protests against poor alignment of that pipeline, and specific health, environmental, and safety issues resulting from use of tar sands.  Improper storage of petcoke in Detroit is certainly one of those issues and I say more power to Occupy Detroit and the other activists, including U.S. Representative and Senate candidate Gary Peters, for bringing this subject to light.

The west side of the state also has their own set of activists against tar sands, and I'll post an entry about them later this afternoon or evening.

*Occupy Detroit has continued to do good work, including documenting the fast-food workers strike last month.  I'll be sure to cover that in a future entry.