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.

Detroit's population increases for third consecutive year

I promised a follow-up to Detroit's population increases for first time since 1957 three times, so watch Click on Detroit/Local 4/WDIV report New census data shows Detroit population grows for third consecutive year.

Detroit’s population continues to climb, according to new estimates released this week by the U.S. Census Bureau, marking the city’s third consecutive year of growth.

Good news! In fact, such good news that I'm recycling what I wrote two years ago: "This is such good news that it's enough to make me repost Professor Farnsworth."


I'm also repeating what I wrote in Across the Globe explains 'How Detroit Went From Good to Bad to Good Again': "Detroit moved up from 29th last year to 26th in U.S. cities by population this year, passing Memphis, Louisville, and Portland. Things are looking up for the Motor City!" Detroit has maintained its position and is catching up to Boston. Should I still be blogging when that happens, I'll be sure to celebrate that event.

By the way, Detroit isn't the only Midwestern city with good population news. FOX 32 Chicago reported Chicago population up for third year in a row, new Census data shows | ChicagoNOW.

New U.S. Census estimates show Chicago’s population increased for the third year in a row, while fast-growing suburbs like Plainfield and Lockport continue to expand. Chicago Tribune reporter Robert McCoppin breaks down what the latest numbers reveal about where people are moving across Chicagoland.

McCoppin listed affordability, taxes, and crime as issues in Chicago. Those same issues apply to Detroit, and Detroit Mayor Mary Sheffield specifically mentioned affordability as a reason people were moving into Detroit. Detroit is also actively engaging in programs to make home ownership more appealing and sustainable; I didn't hear McCoppin or the ChicagoNOW hosts mentioning the City of Chicago doing such things. The Motor City's population loss was a crisis; Chicago's was merely a concern.

McCoppin and the ChicagoNOW hosts also mentioned Illinois' population decline as people left for warmer climates and lower taxes (Florida and Texas have each gained about 2 million people in the past five years, while Illinois lost about 100,000). That's no longer an issue for Michigan; the Great Lakes State's population has actually gone up since 2020. Again, good news.

That's a wrap for today's positive post. Stay tuned for the Sunday entertainment feature.

Listening to people worry about lower birthrates on World Population Day is enough to drive me to drink on National Mojito Day

Happy World Population Day and National Mojito Day! I begin the holiday observances with Newsweek's Singles Pandemic: Why Global Birthrates Are Falling—and What It Means for Our Future.

Birthrates are falling fast—and the impact could reshape the future of economies, families, and entire nations.

In this episode of Blind Spots, we explore the global fertility crisis, from Japan and South Korea to the United States. Why are fewer people having children? How do economic pressure, changing cultural norms, and government policy play a role? And what happens when aging populations outnumber the young?

Singles Pandemic breaks down one of the most urgent demographic trends of our time.

It was time to put the world back in World Population Day after concentrating on U.S. trends since 2020. Japan and especially South Korea have it worse than the U.S., while the French seem to have it better.

Speaking of focusing on the U.S., I'm looking at the other side of American population equation before examining birth rates with TODAY reporting U.S. life expectancy rose to 78.4 years in 2023 early this year.

U.S. life expectancy rose to 78.4 years in 2023, hitting its highest level since the beginning of the Covid pandemic, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Well, that's good news, although U.S. life expectancy still hasn't risen to its 2014 value of 78.9 years. It sank most of the years since, which I started blogging about in 2016, before collapsing during the pandemic and recovering afterwards. If U.S. life expectancy reaches 80 years, I might post Professor Farnsworth. That might be awhile.

Follow over the jump for videos about the situation in the U.S., including what, if anything, can be done about it, plus a video about National Mojito Day.

CityNerd warns 'The New USDOT Is Coming for Your "Woke" Projects,' a driving update on Throwback Thursday

I'm switching things up for the first retrospective examining the most read entries of the fourteenth year of Crazy Eddie's Motie News. Instead of featuring the most read entry, I'm beginning with two driving updates that were among the most read posts of the blogging year just ended. To that end, I'm sharing Ray "CityNerd" Delahanty warning his viewers that The New USDOT Is Coming for Your "Woke" Projects.

We're only a few weeks into the new administration and it already feels like years. Let's check in on what the new USDOT is up to.

As Delahanty pointed out, it's not like he didn't warn us last year. I featured three of his videos doing just that, CityNerd explaining 'What Project 2025 Means for Our Cities' can drive one to drink, CityNerd responds to comments on his Project 2025 video, and CityNerd examines Agenda 47 and cities in 'And You Thought Project 2025 Was Bad'. I anticipated many of the effects on climate change and energy in The BBC World Service examines 'How the US election could change our climate' plus MSNBC on Project 2025 and climate. I didn't expect that this administration would move as aggressively against DEI as it has. Yikes!

Since I like data, I found Henry Grabar's lists of states with the highest and lowest birth numbers and fertility rates.


I mentioned these numbers in class last week when I lectured on population. Welcome to blogging as professional development.

Follow over the jump for the current driving update and the two driving updates that made the most read list during the 14th year of this blog.

U.S. birth rates resume falling while life expectancy increases for World Population Day 2024

Happy World Population Day! As I have all decade, I'm focusing on population growth or lack of it in the U.S., beginning with Fox 5 New York reporting US birth rate drops to record low in April.

New data from the CDC shows that US birthing rates hit a record low with roughly 76,000 fewer births than last year. It[']s the lowest one-year count since 1979. FOX 5 NY's Michelle Ross has more on what may be behind the drop.

This does a good job over covering the reasons for the decline, but it's not complete, so I'm turning to Queen City News, WJZY in Charlotte, North Carolina, reporting U.S. birth rate is on a rapid decline last month for an update and elaboration.

U.S. births were slipping for more than a decade before COVID-19 hit.

Both reports reinforce three of the points I made in CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?'

U.S. birth rates have been dropping for more than a decade and fertility rates have been dropping for even longer than that. In fact, U.S. fertility rates have been at or below replacement rate since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. Economic uncertainty and other factors have contributed to the trend.
...
[I]ncreasing educational and economic opportunities for women is the number one way to decrease birth rates and keep them down, although increasing economic security might put a floor under the declining birth rates.
...
[I]f not enough babies are born in the U.S. to meet our job demand, the country can allow more immigration. I'm O.K. with that, but Donald Trump became president in large part because many Americans weren't and still aren't. That's why, when one of my students asked in 2015 if the U.S. would ever adopt Chinese population policies, I responded no, that's not the American way. If the U.S. thinks it has an overpopulation issue, it would restrict immigration.

Even if the country does not have an overpopulation issue, it might still think it has a different kind of demographic problem, which would still lead it to restrict immigration. In fact, the second chart I included in MSNBC examines Project 2025, part 5 lists even more extreme positions beyond restricting immigration: "Mass deportation of immigrants and incarceration in 'camps'" and "End birth right citizenship." Yikes, especially the second, which attacks the currently accepted idea of who is an American and will affect citizens and others here legally, not just undocumented immigrants.

Both of the above videos mentioned the economic impact of lower birth rates in the future, which is the main concern of CNBC Television's America's shrinking population: Economic impact of falling U.S. birth rate from May.

Melissa Kearney, University of Maryland economics professor, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the declining birth rate in the U.S., the economic impact of a shrinking population, and more.

On the one hand, Professor Melissa Kearney was able to give CNBC anchors Andrew Ross Sorkin and Rebecca Quick an answer that seemed to displease them, that no high-income country has been able to reverse sinking fertility rates, although France and Japan seem to have stabilized theirs, albeit still below replacement rate. That's not what they appear to have wanted to hear. On the other, she called concern about overpopulation "a misguided worry." Hmph. Again, I quote CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?'

[I]ncreased population is bad for the environment, as expressed by the variable P in I=P*A*T "where I is impact, P is population, A is affluence, and T is technology." Impact increases as both population and affluence increases; both drive up demand for resources and create more waste and pollution. Therefore, keeping population down will help the environment. By keeping human population below the carrying capacity for our species, it helps people as well.

I repeated this in PBS Terra asks 'What Happens When Demographics Change Forever?' That video mentioned Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb, in which Ehrlich made a dire prediction about overpopulation causing mass famine. The video pointed out that didn't happen because people heeded the warning and greatly increased food production to stop that future from happening. One of those people was Norman Borlaug, who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for his contributions to the Green Revolution. World Food Program also won the Peace Prize for its efforts to feed the world and forestall famine. As a Crazy Eddie, I salute them.

With all the worry over low birth rates, it's not high birth rates that have increased population in the modern world, it's lower death rates. That ties into some good news from WFXR News in Roanoke, Virginia, US life expectancy rebounded in 2022, but not back to pre-pandemic levels.


Again, this is for 2022, the last full year of the pandemic, at least officially. We'll have to wait until November of this year to find out if life expectancy continued to rebound in 2023.

While I took a quick jab at the cut over the eye above, I promise to return to Project 2025 tomorrow now that I've finished celebrating three holidays over two days. Stay tuned.

Detroit's population increases for first time since 1957

I am sharing good news that I didn't expect to happen this soon, Detroit reversing its population decline. I begin with Click On Detroit/WDIV 4 reporting Detroit population rises after decades of decline last week.

Detroit had seen an exodus of people since the 1950s. Yet the estimates released Thursday show Detroit's population rose by just 1,852 people from 631,366 in 2022 to 633,218 last year.

That's a great use of graphics to give the numbers impact and make people pay attention to them!

CBS Detroit provided more context and human interest in their report, Detroit sees population growth for first time since 1950s.

After decades of decline, Detroit's population population is finally growing once again, according to new estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

This is such good news that it's enough to make me repost Professor Farnsworth.


I haven't shared this particular meme since 2022, so it's a big deal.

I can't let this silver cloud pass without showing its dark lining, which WDIV reported in Experts call for action as population in Michigan dwindles on March 21, 2024.

Michigan's population growth is among the worst in the nation, and it has experts sounding the alarm for some action in Lansing.

Michigan being a climate haven in a warming world will not be enough for more people to move here. The state has to makes itself and especially its cities more appealing, as I wrote last year.

I'm in favor of getting people to move here, both because it's a safer place to live (but not immune from the extreme weather associated with climate change as the second video mentioned) and because the state has room. Detroit alone lost more than one million people since its 1950 peak and other Michigan cities have lost people as well, so they alone could take up the slack — that is, if they can become better places to live and work. People moved out of Michigan to seek work, so state and local governments need to work with businesses to promote and create sustainable industries to employ the people who move here and rebuild infrastructure to support them in a warmer and, for Michigan, wetter world. Infrastructure and housing construction to accommodate people moving here will provide a lot of jobs by themselves, but that only lasts so long. Ask Las Vegas, for example.

Looks like Detroit is succeeding in this department. Just the same, it needs to improve its mass transit, as CityNerd ranked metro Detroit as the fourth worst city in the U.S. for transit. I might share his video next week for a driving update. Stay tuned, after tomorrow's Sunday entertainment feature, where I plan on writing about Ticketmaster.

Vox asks 'Is the US running out of Social Security?'

Today's post is a follow-up of sorts to PBS Terra asks 'What Happens When Demographics Change Forever?' Watch as Vox asks and attempts to answer Is the US running out of Social Security?

There’s no denying that Americans rely heavily on Social Security benefits. Estimates from the Social Security Administration found that 97% of adults over the age of 60 are either collecting or will start collecting Social Security. As of February 2023, about one in every five residents in the US collected benefits from these funds. For such a widely used program, it’s a bit surprising that people in the US know so little about how it works. To be fair, most of the news around this program over the past decade has been about how it’s doomed in one way or another. Millennials and younger may see the money being taxed from their paychecks and believe they’ll probably never see it again, but is the program really destined to fail? And what do we stand to lose if it does? Check out the video above to get the most basic facts about Social Security in the United States and what to expect in the coming years.

The answer to the question is "not until 2033 at current rates" and even then, "not really." Eighty percent of current benefits would not be a good outcome, but it's definitely not nothing. As for the solutions that would maintain current levels of benefits, the one I'm most familiar with is increasing the cap on income being taxed. I'm O.K. with that, but that's because I don't quite earn enough to have the payroll tax not deducted from my final paycheck of the year. Even if I did, I might want that money after I retire, which I plan on doing in December 2026. As for taxing investment income, that's something I hadn't considered, but I'd like even more if it could happen. Good luck making that happen with the current House of Representatives, although it wouldn't be them doing it anyway. I expect nothing will happen until 2029 at the earliest.

Since this video deals with the intersection among demographics, economy, and government, it's something I'd be tempted to show my students as part of the unit on population I'm teaching right now. It even features an animated age structure. Unfortunately, it has an ad in the middle of it. I'm not showing that to my students!

That's it for today's evergreen non-holiday post. Stay tuned for the next installment of marching music for primaries and caucuses on the Vernal Equinox.

PBS Terra asks 'What Happens When Demographics Change Forever?'

My blog passed its page view goals for the month this morning, so I will intersperse evergreen content among all my planned holiday and retrospective posts through Easter. Today's topic comes from PBS Terra, which asks What Happens When Demographics Change Forever?

Are we on the brink of population collapse? Some economists and tech billionaires (like Elon Musk) think so. After all, birth rates are declining, and some argue an aging population could strain social services and hurt the economy. (On the other hand, some say, slower population growth could be more sustainable for our environment.) Whichever argument you sympathize with, here's a key thing to understand about this trend: Demographers predicted it. In fact, they've been expecting for years. Their advice? Don’t freak out. Here’s what changing demographics might mean for our planet and the future.

Like NOVA warns of 'The Next Pompeii' for the Ides of March, this video covers a story I tell my students, this time one about population. In fact, I just added this video to the PowerPoint for that lecture and plan on showing it to my environmental science class on Tuesday. They'll see it right before the first video in Vox and CNBC explain 'Why China's population is shrinking' and 'What [it] Means For The Global Economy'. I hope they don't find it too repetitive.

Speaking of being repetitive, I'm being a good environmentalist by recycling two points from CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?'

Second, increased population is bad for the environment, as expressed by the variable P in I=P*A*T "where I is impact, P is population, A is affluence, and T is technology." Impact increases as both population and affluence increases; both drive up demand for resources and create more waste and pollution. Therefore, keeping population down will help the environment. By keeping human population below the carrying capacity for our species, it helps people as well.

Third, increasing educational and economic opportunities for women is the number one way to decrease birth rates and keep them down, although increasing economic security might put a floor under the declining birth rates. Women's education and a stronger economy will also increase affluence, which will increase impact if more efficient technologies don't counteract both affluence and population.

The video makes both of these points, which I hope my students absorb.

I close by repeating what I worried about six years ago and have repeated several times since.

I have been in favor of zero population growth for as long as I can remember. However, I'm not sure the U.S. economy is set up for a stable or slowly declining population, a point I made in the Hipcrime Vocab: Why Slowing Population Growth is a Problem. We are going to have to figure how to do so. Otherwise, I might live long enough to experience the wisdom of the saying "Be careful what you wish for; you might get it."

Stay tuned for the Sunday entertainment feature on St. Patrick's Day. The luck of the Irish for Cillian Murphy at the Oscars, anyone?

U.S. birthrate resumes its decline for World Population Day 2023

I told my readers to "stay tuned for World Population Day" at the end of Happy National Mojito Day 2023! I'm revisiting the theme of last year's post by sharing CNBC Television's U.S. birth rates dropped in 2022 from June 1, 2023.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the nation saw fewer babies born in 2022 compared to 2021.

I quoted Vox last year, who wrote "2021 represents the first time since 2014 that the number of babies born in the US actually increased...But make no mistake: This is not a baby boom that is meant to last." I concurred, writing "I agree with Vox; this is likely just a temporary reversal of a long-term trend." So far, Vox and I are right.

CNBC Television explained the trend last year in Why the birth rate in the U.S. is falling.

Children are really expensive to raise in the United States. Economists say people may be taking that into consideration when deciding whether to have kids. Fertility rates dropped ahead of the Great Recession in 2007, suggesting having children may be an indicator of people's confidence about the future. Despite this, public opinion polling suggests that financial anxiety is not actually deterring Americans from having children. Watch the video above to learn why the birth rate is falling and what the Covid pandemic may mean for future fertility rates.

The U.S. is part of a global trend among wealthier countries for fewer births, longer lives, more older people, and slowing population growth or even outright decline, as the United Nations described in 8 Billion People And Counting: What Now? | World Population Day 2023.

The global population has reached 8 billion, what does this mean for the future of our world?

Dr. Rachel Snow of the United Nations Population Fund is here to answer your questions.

That is probably the most optimistic take on growing global population I've seen in a long time. It's certainly not gloom and doom. It's also very timely, as I'm teaching a unit on population right now. I might even show this video to my students tomorrow. Welcome to blogging as professional development.

Vox and CNBC explain 'Why China's population is shrinking' and 'What [it] Means For The Global Economy'

I made a note to myself in the middle of 'SNL' drags George Santos in its first show of 2023.

While I mentioned India's population passing China's in U.N. estimates that the human population passed 8 billion, I don't recall any prediction that China's population was already declining. A decrease of more than 800,000? I'll have to blog about that!

Vox gave me the opportunity to follow through by uploading Why China's population is shrinking today.

And why that’s a big deal.
...
For the first time in six decades, China’s population is shrinking, and it’s predicted it could create a demographic crisis. That’s because China isn’t just shrinking, it’s also aging. And the majority of Chinese couples are not considering having more than one child. Because of this, China is predicted to lose nearly 50 percent of its population by 2100.

China’s population decline can be traced back to the restrictive family-planning policies launched in the 1970s and an impressive economic boom fueled by China’s huge labor force.
China’s modernization brought rapid urbanization, rising income levels, and better education to large parts of China. Combined, these policies and growth have given China one of the lowest birth rates in the world.

Today, China is trying to reverse its population decline. Not just because an aging population is hard to sustain economically, but because China’s impressive economic growth, until now, has relied on its people. As China’s population challenges deepen over time, it might have to rethink how to grow its economy and care for its citizens.

I am in the middle of lecturing about human population in my Environmental Science class and described China's one-child policy on Thursday and this video fits right in. I think I'll show this video to my class as an update tomorrow night and replace the video I embedded in China ends one child policy in my slideshow. Welcome to blogging as professional development.

Vox explained what its shrinking population means to China. CNBC examined how it affects the rest of the world in What China's Shrinking Population Means For The Global Economy.

China remains home to 1.4 billion people. But that number is getting smaller.

The country's National Bureau of Statistics reported China's population slipped to 1.412 billion last year from 1.413 billion in 2021. The last time China saw negative population growth was in the 1960s.

Many experts believe that China's one-child policy, introduced in the 1980s, is one of the main reasons for the population decline.

I've been worried about China passing the U.S. to become the dominant global power and have advocated for cooperation, which I labeled The CoDominion. My long-time commenters Nebris and Infidel753 have been skeptical of this happening for political, social, and cultural reasons. They didn't convince me because I'm a scientist and I need something more concrete. China's population decline provides that concrete support. Now I'm less worried about China passing the U.S. to become number one.

What about India? Frankly, I think I'd be happier with a world where India is in charge. It will also take longer, as India currently has the fifth largest GDP, passing the United Kingdom, and is projected to pass Germany by 2027 and Japan to reach third by 2030. The three most populous nations will then have the three largest economies, although in reverse order. I can live with that.

Enough serious news and analysis. Stay tuned for some comedy tomorrow.

MLive asks 'Michigan is a climate haven in a warming world. Will everyone move here?'

I telegraphed today's topic at the conclusion of PBS Terra asks 'What is the RISKIEST Region in the US as the Climate Changes?'

I'm heartened to see that the western Great Lakes states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, along with Iowa, form the safest region from climate change. Half of the ten safest cities from climate change are in these states. As I wrote the last two times I examined this subject: "I'll take it. It reinforces my feeling that leaving California for Michigan has turned out to be a smart move, literally, the longer I live here." I just wish that the economics were such that people would move here instead of into harm's way. That would make a great subject for another post. Stay tuned.

MLive uploaded three videos on this subject, two last month and one this week. I begin with the most recent, which has the best preview image but a worse reading of the script, Michigan is a climate haven in a warming world. Will everyone move here?

In a warming world, Michigan stands out as a relative winner. With protection from the Great Lakes, Michigan will be spared from some of the worst effects of climate change, including extreme drought, intensifying hurricanes and wildfires.

Now for the better written and read video from December 2022, which has a weaker preview image, asking the same question: Michigan is a climate haven in a warming world. Will everyone move here?

Michigan looks increasingly attractive in a country where wildfires turn million-dollar mansions to ash in California, intensifying hurricanes sink homes along Florida’s coasts, and cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix face the alarming reality the Colorado River will no longer sustain them.

This state’s two peninsulas, meanwhile, have ample freshwater – the Great Lakes contain 90% of North America’s supply, lower temperatures, and vast swaths of undeveloped land.

Michigan is a climate haven. MLive's Lindsay Moore explains.

To answer the question MLive asked in both videos — no, literally not "everyone." After all, other states are also climate havens and they will also receive climate refugees. However, could tens of thousands if not millions move to the Great Lakes State and millions more to other climate havens? Absolutely.

I'm in favor of getting people to move here, both because it's a safer place to live (but not immune from the extreme weather associated with climate change as the second video mentioned) and because the state has room. Detroit alone lost more than one million people since its 1950 peak and other Michigan cities have lost people as well, so they alone could take up the slack — that is, if they can become better places to live and work. People moved out of Michigan to seek work, so state and local governments need to work with businesses to promote and create sustainable industries to employ the people who move here and rebuild infrastructure to support them in a warmer and, for Michigan, wetter world. Infrastructure and housing construction to accomodate people moving here will provide a lot of jobs by themselves, but that only lasts so long. Ask Las Vegas, for example.

I close today's post with MLive's interviews of the vanguard of climate refugees who have already moved to Michigan, Families flee climate crises to resettle in Michigan's haven.

Families explain their stories as they flee climate crises to resettle in Michigan's haven. (Kaytie Boomer, Jacob Hamilton, Sheri McWhirter, Cory Morse, Garret Ellison all with MLive.com)

Note that one family moved to Ann Arbor, a city that I can say from personal experience is already a great place to live and work, and another didn't need to live near work at all, so they could live anywhere. Both of them already had connections to the areas where they relocated, so I expect more of the early wave of migrants will be those already familiar with Michigan. If so, welcome back! Michigan missed you!

'SNL' drags George Santos in its first show of 2023

George Santos continues to live up to my prediction that he'll be a great inspiration for comedy as long as he stays in the news. Watch a NFL on Fox Cold Open as "Saturday Night Live" returns for the new year.

Fox Sports hosts (Kenan Thompson, Mikey Day, James Austin Johnson, Devon Walker, Molly Kearney) interview Rep. George Santos (Bowen Yang).

As I wrote the last time I featured comedians mocking Santos, "It's hard for satire to be more ridiculous than reality these days, but this segment managed to do so" — but just barely.

SNL's dragging of Santos continued in Weekend Update: Biden's Classified Document Scandal, George Santos' Lies.

Weekend Update anchors Colin Jost and Michael Che tackle the week's biggest news, like Biden and Trump's classified document scandals.

Weekend Update returned to Santos later, but in the meantime, it gave the Biden documents story about as much time as it deserved — not much. Ron DeSantis's comments about Florida being a refuge of sanity during the pandemic by refusing to go along with vaccine and mask mandates also got as much respect as they deserve by referencing Florida's reputation for craziness.

Well, this is Florida, which is known for the crazy news it produces. As an expatriate Californian, I'm perversely glad that it ha[s] the insane reputation that it does; it makes California, especially southern California, look good.

The last story reminds me of a meme I haven't used since Maddow asks if the filibuster can be waived for the debt ceiling, why can't it be waived for voting rights?


I'm sure I'll be returning to the topic, especially if it results in another Satan Sandwich.

Follow over the jump for the rest of Weekend Update.

Vox, Time, and WatchMojo look back at 2022

It's nearing the end of the year, so it's time, pun intended, for me to post the 2022 version of Vox, TODAY, and ABC News look back at 2021. I begin, as I did last year, with Vox recapping 2022, in 7 minutes.

Running up that hill with 8 billion people.
...
In 2022, the world population crossed 8 billion people — and we felt the scale of this monumental milestone in hundreds of ways. After over two years of lockdowns and quarantines, people eagerly restarted their lives, but there were certainly growing pains. Weddings and travel skyrocketed, but so did lost luggage and global inflation rates. Taylor Swift broke Ticketmaster. Cryptocurrency was headed toward a great year until it really, really wasn’t. 2022 tested the world population as we tested out life in a new phase of the pandemic.

Russia invaded Ukraine, and aid relief flooded into the war-torn country. Refugees were welcomed into surrounding countries, and those who stayed behind inspired people around the world. Global protests cried out for justice in Iran. Football teams stood up for migrant workers and the LGBTQ+ community at the World Cup. Cuba legalized same-sex marriage. The world froze for a moment when England’s longest-reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, died. And we all watched a lot of TikTok.

As we head into 2023, take a moment to look back at the events that defined this year.

The other year in review videos I watched did not even mention the human population passing 8 billion, yet Vox made it the first and organizing story. This is yet another reason I subscribe to Vox on YouTube and why it's one of my favorite sources for news and analysis.

Time Magazine had a more conventional take in 2022: A Year In Review.

Following years of uncertainty—and a global pandemic that has proven to be one of the most challenging events in history—we forged on, prepared to tackle what lay ahead. And as we continued to extract the possible from the impossible, this year taught us, above all, that our voices—no matter how big or small—can change the world.

That's a much more conventional year in review than Vox's, as is WatchMojo's Top 10 Breaking News Stories of 2022.

These events were the most significant, culture-shifting, and/or shocking moments from 2022. For this list, we’ll be looking at the most impactful news items from the year. Our countdown includes Elon Musk Acquires Twitter, Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Trial, The Death of Queen Elizabeth II, and more!

I have three comments on this video. First, it did a good job of selecting and explaining its top ten stories. Second, that gave me more insight into the Depp and Heard civil trial, which I dismissed by writing "'SNL' also has 'I can't be all DOOM all the time' moods and needed some escapism" in Weekend Update compares this week's headlines to 'Mad Max' on last night's 'SNL'. It turned out to be a more significant story than I thought at the time and yet another example of a future blogging topic. Finally, this is yet another example of WatchMojo producing "high-quality, well-researched clickbait" that is worth sharing.

I close by returning to Time telling its viewers to Watch: A Tribute to Those We’ve Lost in 2022.

As 2022 comes to a close, we take a moment to reflect on Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton-John, Queen Elizabeth II, and many more who left us in the past year.

R.I.P.

Stay tuned for one final retrospective on New Year's Eve.

U.N. estimates that the human population passed 8 billion

I told my readers "Stay tuned as I return to this blog's regular programming, whatever that is." The regular, but not frequent, subjects of this blog include population, which passed a milestone yesterday as BBC News reported World’s population hits 8 billion, UN says.

The world's population has hit eight billion, just 11 years after passing the seven-billion milestone, the United Nations has said.

After a big surge in the middle of the 20th Century, population growth is already slowing down.

It could take 15 years to reach nine billion and the UN doesn't expect to reach 10 billion until 2080.

It's hard to calculate the number of people in the world accurately, and the UN admits its sums could be out by a year or two.

This is very much the message I tell my students about the history and likely future of population growth and its effects on people and the planet. I might just replace the National Geographic video I embedded in both A video gift from a student and Student sustainability video festival 5: previous years' winners I currently have in my lectures with this one, although it lacks the infographics introducing the topics of health, water, and energy (even though the energy stat it cites for energy use was already out of date when the video was produced) that set up the rest of the course. Still, welcome to blogging as professional development.

The BBC video mentioned India's population passing China's, lower fertility rates, an aging population, and strains on infrastructure. All of those are the subjects of Cities under strain as world population hits 8 billion from Reuters.

As the world population touches the 8 billion mark this week, countries like India, the second-most populous country in the world, are faced with the challenges - from creating suitable infrastructure to creating a skilled workforce from the country's youth.

I tell my students that the world is becoming increasingly urbanized at the same time that population is increasing, so population problems will show up as urban problems. India's situation is a perfect example of this. I might add this video to my lectures on population as well. Again, welcome to blogging as professional development.

By the way, the population milestone has already inspired a song, Kiran + Nivi - 8 billion people (Official Lyric Video).



Lyric video by Kiran + Nivi performing 8 billion people.
More people doesn't mean one can't be lonely in a crowd, it just means one can be lonelier in a bigger crowd.

I have another milestone to observe as Snow Bear passed 10,000 miles yesterday, so stay tuned for a driving update.

U.S. population growth rate at record low because of pandemic for World Population Day 2022

Not only is today A recipe from Cuba for National Mojito Day, it's World Population Day. I begin this year's observance with NBC News reporting U.S. Population Growth At Lowest Rate Since Nation's Founding last December.

The U.S. population [growth rate] fell to its lowest rate during the Covid-19 pandemic's first year. NBC News Zinhle Essamuah takes a look at what factors may be driving the low growth rate including birth rates and immigration.

No surprise, the largest drop in life expectancy since World War II during 2020 because of the pandemic was a major contributor to the record low rate of U.S. population growth along with lower birth rates. MSNBC examined the causes for the latter in The Declining U.S. Birthrate Comes As No Surprise.

There are a lot of headlines detailing a drop in birth rates, but has anyone wondered why? [MSNBC]'s host of American Voices, Alicia Menendez, details how the state of our country is impacting those statistics.

That's a good summary of the reasons why young Americans are not having as many children as their parents and grandparents and points to what could be done to reverse the trend.

ABC News reported that the trend continued into the next year in Birth rate declined in the first half of 2021: CDC.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention believes the decline in birth rate is likely linked to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the decline in birth rates and population growth got the video headlines, Vox reported that the trend reversed itself later during the year in The increase in US births in 2021, explained.

A total of 3,659,289 babies were born in the US in 2021, according to new data released this week by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. That’s 1 percent more than the 3,613,647 babies born in the US in 2020, which means that the natal class of 2021 is now what passes for a baby boom in the United States of America.

Indeed, 2021 represents the first time since 2014 that the number of babies born in the US actually increased, bouncing back from a pandemic year in 2020 that saw the largest one-year drop in births in nearly 50 years.

The 2020 dip in births wasn’t much of a surprise to demographers. Despite the popular misconception that events like blizzards and blackouts that keep couples homebound inevitably lead to more babies nine months later, the lockdowns of early 2020 were not particularly conducive to the conceiving of children. Surveys conducted during 2020 found that as many as a third of American women changed their reproductive plans because of the pandemic, while and as many as half of American adults reported a decline in their sexual activity.

That 1 percent increase in births in 2021 stems in part from planned pregnancies delayed for a year or so, until the country saw improved epidemiological and economic conditions during the later stages of the pandemic, as stimulus and unemployment aid from the government made would-be parents a little less apprehensive about bringing a new life into the world.

So the playgrounds and preschools might be a smidge more crowded over the next few years. But make no mistake: This is not a baby boom that is meant to last.

Vox then showed what last year's rise in U.S. births looks like in context.


I agree with Vox; this is likely just a temporary reversal of a long-term trend. I have a lengthy examination of what this could mean in CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?' Read it there.

'Last Week Tonight' examines Alito's leaked draft opinion and what it could mean

I quoted John Oliver examines the Supreme Court after 'Last Week Tonight' wins four Emmy Awards, mentioning "all the bad things that can happen to health care, reproductive rights, civil rights, and voting rights" in 'Saturday Night Live' mocks Alito's leaked Supreme Court opinion to open its Mother's Day episode and adding that "If Alito's draft becomes the majority opinion, then bad things will have happened to health care, reproductive rights, and civil rights all at once. This will become one of those times when I wish the comedians and I weren't right." That night, "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" broadcast Abortion Ruling, which the show and HBO uploaded this morning.

John Oliver discusses the leaked draft opinion that looks set to overturn Roe v. Wade, how we got to this point, and where we may be headed.

Oliver didn't go as far back as the 1200s, which "Saturday Night Live" did. He only had to note Sir Matthew Hale from the 1600s to point out the antiquated sources Justice Alito cited to support his draft opinion, who was bad enough.

As for Oliver mocking Chuck Schumer saying "this is not your grandfather's Republican Party," yes and no. In terms of style, it certainly isn't, but on reproductive rights, it's been heading this way for decades. While I didn't mention reproductive rights in If I were still a conservative, disagreement with the anti-abortion movement inside the Republican Party, which had nearly completed its takeover of the party by 2000, certainly contributed. My environmentalism, which I did mention in that post from eleven years ago as a reason I left the GOP, leads me to favor birth control, including abortion as a last resort, in order to reach zero population growth. My feminism adds to my support for reproductive rights. I explained both in CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?'

U.S. birth rates have been dropping for more than a decade and fertility rates have been dropping for even longer than that. In fact, U.S. fertility rates have been at or below replacement rate since 1973, when Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. Economic uncertainty and other factors have contributed to the trend.

Second, increased population is bad for the environment, as expressed by the variable P in I=P*A*T "where I is impact, P is population, A is affluence, and T is technology." Impact increases as both population and affluence increases; both drive up demand for resources and create more waste and pollution. Therefore, keeping population down will help the environment. By keeping human population below the carrying capacity for our species, it helps people as well.

Third, increasing educational and economic opportunities for women is the number one way to decrease birth rates and keep them down, although increasing economic security might put a floor under the declining birth rates. Women's education and a stronger economy will also increase affluence, which will increase impact if more efficient technologies don't counteract both affluence and population.

Notice that I started this section by crediting Roe v. Wade for beginning the current period of low birth rates. That Oliver cites an estimate of 75,000 more children being born if (when) it's overturned demonstrates its effectiveness at lowering U.S. population growth.  Therefore, overturning it strikes me as generally bad for sustainability.

What I see as an unfortunate outcome is one that opponents of abortion regard as a good one, including for its economic effects as an alternative solution to the one I proposed last year.

[I]f not enough babies are born in the U.S. to meet our job demand, the country can allow more immigration. I'm O.K. with that, but Donald Trump became president in large part because many Americans weren't and still aren't. That's why, when one of my students asked in 2015 if the U.S. would ever adopt Chinese population policies, I responded no, that's not the American way. If the U.S. thinks it has an overpopulation issue, it would restrict immigration. The next week, Trump rode down the escalator and denounced immigrants. This is one of those cases where I hate being proved right.

If increasing immigration is not an acceptable solution, then increasing the U.S. birth rate would be. It's a way of avoiding what I worried about four years ago and have repeated several times since.

I have been in favor of zero population growth for as long as I can remember. However, I'm not sure the U.S. economy is set up for a stable or slowly declining population, a point I made in the Hipcrime Vocab: Why Slowing Population Growth is a Problem. We are going to have to figure how to do so. Otherwise, I might live long enough to experience the wisdom of the saying "Be careful what you wish for; you might get it."

I can say the same thing for the opponents of Roe v. Wade, who now seem to be moving on to restricting contraception. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

CDC confirms largest drop in life expectancy since World War II during 2020, a pandemic update

I reported that life expectancy fell 1 year for all Americans, 3 years for African-Americans, during 2020 because of the pandemic. While I updated this grim news in U.S. birth and fertility rates and life expectancy all fell in 2020 for a late World Population Day, I didn't base it on the latest CDC data. That came out this week, which NJ Spotlight News featured in US life expectancy sees biggest drop in generations.

People of color are seeing the biggest drop, with Black Americans and Hispanics now having a life expectancy roughly three years lower than in 2019. Hispanic males saw the biggest drop, at 3.7 years.

For more details, watch CBS New York's report U.S. Life Expectancy Sees Staggering Drop Due To Pandemic.

New government data shows life expectancy in the U.S. has reached the lowest level since 2003, with people living on average just over 77 years. The biggest culprit? COVID deaths. CBS2's Jessica Layton reports.

For even more detail, I turn to the Associated Press in the Detroit News.

The drop spelled out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is due mainly to the COVID-19 pandemic, which health officials said is responsible for close to 74% of the overall life expectancy decline. More than 3.3 million Americans died last year, far more than any other year in U.S. history, with COVID-19 accounting for about 11% of those deaths.

When I quoted USA Today reporting "more than 3 million people died in 2020 - the deadliest year in US history" in A pandemic update from Michigan as vaccinations ramp up while U.S. death toll passes 400,000, neither my source nor I were being pessimistic enough.

Just because the pandemic is responsible for most of the drop, other causes, like the opioid epidemic and systemic racism making the pandemic worse for minorities, played roles in lowering life expectancy.

Killers other than COVID-19 played a role. Drug overdoses pushed life expectancy down, particularly for whites. And rising homicides were a small but significant reason for the decline for Black Americans, said Elizabeth Arias, the report's lead author.

Other problems affected Black and Hispanic people, including lack of access to quality health care, more crowded living conditions, and a greater share of the population in lower-paying jobs that required them to keep working when the pandemic was at its worst, experts said.

Last year's excess mortality will have long-lasting effects on the survivors, as CBS Evening News reported in Study finds over 100,000 U.S. children lost a parent during pandemic.

More than 100,000 children in the U.S. have lost at least one parent from the COVID-19 pandemic. The news comes as the U.S. saw its largest drop in life expectancy since World War II. Mireya Villarreal shares more.

Loss of parents from the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on minorities as well. That's another reason why returning to the pre-pandemic normal isn't good enough.

U.S. birth and fertility rates and life expectancy all fell in 2020 for a late World Population Day

A belated World Population Day to my readers! When I decided "Doom in the form of falling birth rates can wait" on Father's Day weekend, I thought today would be a more appropriate occasion to tackle the subject, as I did last year. On that note, I begin by sharing Bill McBride, who wrote U.S. Births decreased in 2020, "Lowest number of births since 1979" in Calculated Risk two months ago.

From the National Center for Health Statistics: Births: Provisional Data for 2020. The NCHS reports:

The provisional number of births for the United States in 2020 was 3,605,201, down 4% from the number in 2019 (3,747,540). This is the sixth consecutive year that the number of births has declined after an increase in 2014, down an average of 2% per year, and the lowest number of births since 1979.

The provisional general fertility rate (GFR) for the United States in 2020 was 55.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15–44, down 4% from the rate in 2019 (58.3), another record low for the nation. From 2014 to 2020, the GFR declined by an average of 2% per year
…
The provisional birth rate for teenagers in 2020 was 15.3 births per 1,000 females aged 15–19, down 8% from 2019 (16.7), reaching another record low for this age group. The rate has declined by 63% since 2007 (41.5), the most recent period of continued decline, and 75% since 1991, the most recent peak.

Here is a long term graph of annual U.S. births through 2020.

VOA News picked up the story two weeks later when it asked COVID Baby Bust? US Birth Rates See Biggest Drop in Nearly 50 Years.

New data show that the birth rate in the United States dropped significantly for every major race and age group during the past year. Experts not only blame uncertainty over coronavirus for part of the decline but also say the U.S. “COVID baby bust” reflects long-running trends in other developed nations. VOA’s Laurel Bowman has that story.

As I wrote about retail, the pandemic has accelerated existing trends in fertility, not caused them.

While McBride and VOA News reported the above in May, the story has continued to make news. Follow over the jump for two more video reports from local TV stations, including Detroit's own WXYZ, plus an update on falling life expectancy.

Noah, Colbert, Kimmel, and Corden explain GameStop, a funny tale of the stock market and Retail Apocalypse

I haven't written a story about the Retail Apocalypse since Black Friday/Buy Nothing Day and the stock market since September, so I was due. Well, do I have a story about both with a comedic twist, GameStop, which was the subject of four monologues last night, beginning with The Daily Show with Trevor Noah's Reddit’s GameStop Stock Boost & MLB’s Hall of Fame Drought.

Redditors boost the stock price of GameStop to insane numbers, the pandemic possibly creates a baby bust, and the Baseball Hall of Fame inducts no new players this year.

Good use of "The Big Short" to explain the situation. Other comedians will reference that scene later.

Before I move on the rest of the monologues last night, I'm thanking Trevor and his writers for including a perfect callback to yesterday's CNBC asks 'Is The U.S. Running Out Of People?' I like good transitions and I couldn't have imagined a better one between yesterday's post about population and today's about stocks.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had a less on-topic preview image but a better monologue in How Reddit Traders Used GameStop To Totally Spank The Wall Street Big Boys.

Stephen has the perfect explainer video for anyone trying to figure out what the heck is happening on Wall Street, as giant hedge funds get brutally punished by swarms of Reddit users harnessing their collective power to boost GameStop's stock price.

The opening of this monologue harks back to the failed self-coup and the kind of people who supported it. Consider that a preview of coming attractions on this blog as I make fun of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and other members of the "QAnon Caucus" in the coming months.

Stephen mentioned the Margot Robbie scene from "The Big Short," but created his own version. I like the visual explanation in it better. Beanie Babies, which we'll see again as well, make for a good concrete example. Robbie was too distracting in the original and seeing Trevor's head on her was even more distracting.

Follow over the jump for two more monologues that featured GameStop and its stock.