I've been wanting to put up a new post
for some time now, but I've been swamped at work and with family
issues. But at the moment I am watching the snow blow around outside
my window contemplating clearing my driveway. Since I am not too
enthusiastic about doing that I thought now would be a good time to
write about something. I know there are many topics out there, the
fires in Australia, the killing of Soleimani, the downing of the
civilian aircraft by Iran and, of course, the impeachment of Donald
Trump. But a friend had suggested a topic a little while back that
maybe it is time we looked a little more closely at, population
decline.
Recently here in Minnesota we have
started talking about our declining population and what that will
mean to our future well being. I know there are those who worry
about population increase, but in reality we are actually looking at
just the opposite. Years ago in the 50's and 60's we had what
everyone called a “baby boom” leading to what was later called
the “Boomer generation”. Nowadays being designated a “Boomer”
has become somewhat of an insult in certain quarters. There seems to
be a growing rift between generations. But I digress.
I ran across this rather neat video
showing the changing population rates in various countries. They run
it over a large span of years showing what has happened and what they
believe will happen in the future. Some of the numbers in various
countries may surprise you.
In Minnesota we speculate on whether or
not we will lose a seat in the House because of population decline,
but perhaps that is a minor consequence compared to other things. I
remember a trip I took some years ago out to the western states of
the US. I visited a ghost town up in the mountains. Sometimes it is good to visit the past. It may be a foreshadowing of things
to come.
Others have dealt with their own
population declines in other ways. You may want to visit a town in
Japan that has tried a different approach. Well, one resident has,
anyway.
Yes, it's a little sad, I know. So I
will end this post with a little upbeat news. At least for one city
in Japan.
Now, my driveway awaits...and the sun has come out...
48 comments:
You appear to buy into the prevailing cultural inclination to see population growth as a good thing, a goal in and of itself, and therefore to see population decline to be a bad thing, by definition.
(I guess it's obvious from some of my prior posts that I disagree with both those propositions. But, I'd also guess we're not gonna settle that one here.)
More to the point of your post, it doesn't appear that the United States is projected to suffer population decline in the foreseeable future. (We have experienced shifts in comparative regional population densities from WWII on, largely a result of the widespread adoption of residential air-conditioning, but it doesn't look like we're in for a population loss.)
I don't know that I would necessarily say that population decline is a bad thing, given the danger of running out of planetary resources as a result of population growth. It just seems sad to see the end of some things, such as a thriving community. Perhaps it is just that change can sometimes be hard.
I can see where my state may not be as attractive on the surface because of the colder weather. The warmer states of the south have always been more popular. But I think with climate change Minnesota may actually have something more to offer. No coasts for one thing.
"It just seems sad to see the end of some things, such as a
thriving community."
I would guess from that comment that you grew up in an urban environment and so you're less likely than I to see nature taking back some of her own as a restoration.
"Perhaps it is just that change can sometimes be hard."
I think the correct adverb might be "usually", rather than "sometimes".
Be that as it may…, while watching that St. Elmo video I noticed what looked like an old trash dump emphasizing rusted food cans out in the woods there, and I noticed evidence of streams in the area, which streams are now not being polluted by the run-off from the mining operations. On the whole, seems to me to be decent trade to give up a village whose primary useful function seemed to be to service a hole in the ground, and get some useful wilderness back in return for a hole that wasn't needed. Seems a good trade to me actually; nothin' to mourn here.
And, in a different context one can imagine that old Japanese woman declaring her dolls to be "art" and asking her government to write her a fat grant check to support her work. (If that French guy, Christo, can put up big yellow and blue umbrellas and wrap fabric around little coral islands and make a grand livin' at it, I see no reason to feel great sorrow over the Japanese lady plunking dolls down in her environment. Seems she's drawing tourists already, so….)
And, yeah, I can see there's a very real possibility that the air-conditioning era's migration to the sun-belt just might end up being reversed by global warming. Could be our grandchildren will live in a world where Canada is the dominant power on the North American continent and Minnesota is a noted tourist destination, sunny beaches on warm water lakes for the snowbirds from Hudson Bay to come visit in the winter. Could become so I reckon.
Lol! Here I've always thought I was the optimist. Your points are well taken. I was only looking at this from the standpoint of the former residents, not the environment around them. I know there are many areas in the country that would actually benefit from less population. And, for sure, the woman who makes the dolls has made lemonade out of lemons.
I did rather like the idea of Minnesota becoming an attractive vacation spot for people seeking warmer climes.
Just a small, or maybe not so small, change of topic. It appears that Putin has finally put in writing changes that will make him dictator for life. I can't help but wonder if he is showing Donald Trump the way. I wonder this because it does seem that Trump has been taking some pointers from Putin. I certainly hope we have stronger democratic roots.
Oh, one thing I meant to mention about the population variations in that video. It is a little deceptive in that it measures changes within various countries. So the declines may not actually be global. As some of those people have simply packed up and left, as in the cases of Syria and Venezuela.
When climate change really becomes bad I assume we will see large migrations of people to more hospitable climates.
"I can't help but wonder if he is showing Donald Trump the
way."
We have a much more difficult process for amending the Constitution (which may be even more important than the state of our democratic traditions in this current age of Trump and the dedicated Trumpkins). But, first he has to win a second term before we begin to worry 'bout such things.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"As some of those people have simply packed up and left, as in
the cases of Syria and Venezuela."
I noticed those, also the cases of Rwandan and Ukraine (among some others)
Off topic:
In a break from tradition the NewYorkTimes has chosen to endorse two (2) candidates for the position as Democratic Party nominee for the office of President.
You'll probably be pleased to know that Minnesota Senator Any Klobuchar was one of the NYT's two endorsee's.
(In spite of the NYT's novel approach to endorsement, there will very likely be only one (1) winner at the Democratic convention come July.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For observations more ‛on topic’…
In Ye Olden Days Lords of the Manor needed serfs to lord it over. Otherwise there wasn't really much point in being a Lord to begin with.
Historically, up to 99% of the human population was engaged in farming, the feeding and clothing of that other 1%, who made up the rulers and clerics, artists and artisans (and, importantly, also the sheriffs and soldiers who defended the said rulers and clerics, from one another as well as from the 99%).
I think the numbers I've seen on early American job distribution were actually 98% in agriculture; 2% else. It may not have been quite this lopsided in Europe at that time, but it was still lopsided enough. (The exact percentages on any particular date aren't that important, so let's not get bogged down arguing those.)
The Lords have much less need of a population these nowadays. Much of the mundane work of supplying food and fiber to the Lords and their Ladies has been taken over by mechanization. More is being mechanized every year. And soon the necessary wars (as well as the unnecessary wars) and the necessary citizen suppressions may be fought largely by robots as well.
That means the 1% now have considerably less incentive to keep the other 99% alive. And that has a lot to do with our increased income inequalities. After several decades of finally starting to close that gap, the gap is getting larger again.
This does not bode well for the great majority of the population who live below the "Lords and Ladies" cutoff points.
So, I'm thinking that producing excess population probably isn't going to be considered a worthwhile social goal in the foreseeable future. (May be different for the Chinese who seem to think these things are a proper matter for government mandates and sanctions, but for the rest of us, probably ‛no’ to the excess population question.)
I almost forgot.
One year from today. Somebody's gonna be sworn in as President of the United States. #NeverTrump!
#NeverTrump!
We can only keep the faith.
You'll probably be pleased to know that Minnesota Senator Any Klobuchar was one of the NYT's two endorsee's.
I saw that! Yes, I am pleased.
It appears that the NYT's is trying to please two types of voters, the moderates who may favor Amy and the "progressives" who may favor Elizabeth Warren. It is interesting that they chose women. I would find that match up against Trump to be suitable for some reason, despite Hilary Clinton losing to him.
That means the 1% now have considerably less incentive to keep the other 99% alive.
Okay, back to my thinking I'm the optimist.
I could see Trump & Co. behaving that way. It does appear that, contrary to Trumo's propaganda, his policies head in that direction.
If we can get rid of him and his acolytes we may manage to bring glad tidings to the lower rungs of society. No, I don't mean socialism, I just mean a more equitable distribution of resources, including wealth, through fairer policy.
Have you been watching any of the Senate trial? I haven't had a chance, yet, but I may try to tonight.
"Have you been watching any of the Senate trial?"
They're still doing opening arguments as of today. I'm not watching those. I know the arguments already. If they start taking in evidence I'll probably go back to trying to catch what I can.
(Correction: The House managers are also laying out their arguments with clips and quotes from the House hearings. Technically, I guess that's evidence, but it's old evidence that I watched during the House hearings, so--no not watching yet.)
I noticed something this morning about those several extant DoJ memos which claim that the President of the United States cannot be criminally indicted. They were all produced during the tenure of Richard M. Nixon (Watergate), Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra scandal), or Bill Clinton (the Monica Lewinsky affair)
Could be we oughta be asking the government to start rethinking those after Trump's turned out of office in 2020.
Trump fired off more than 140 tweets yesterday. The vast majority of them on the impeachment. The message to Republican Senators should be clear. Trump is watching this intently. "If you have any notions of jumping ship and voting with the Democrats to allow witnesses there will be hell for you to pay."
We can bet that Senator Susan Collins knows damn well what it will mean for her should she should be the 50th or 51st vote to call witnesses. (Her deal with McConnell allows for her to be the 49th vote; she can vote against McConnell's interests so long as McConnell wins and she's on the losing side of the vote--but she can't vote against McConnell when it matters. In this case, Pence can't break ties in an impeachment proceeding. So, she'll not be the 50th vote, which could conceivably throw the tie decision to Chief Justice Roberts, not a safe harbor for Trump. And she sure as hell won't be the 51st vote against Trump/McConnell's interest here.)
Correction: I went back and re-read the six page set of governing rules. Parsing it out, on page three, it appears that a tie vote defaults to no witnesses. There has to be a majority vote to take up the call for witnesses. So, Susan Collins may be the 50th vote to call witnesses and it will still lose outright--no bounce to the Chief Justice to break the tie. So, she can be the 50th vote, but not the 51st.
Guessing from the tenor of last night's summation by Adam Schiff, I'm thinking the House Democrats will try to wrap it up early tonight--try to present their final argument during early prime-time. Say, 7:00 maybe 8:00 pm Eastern Standard time to begin their final argument.
There's a tape:
Breaking news that there's an audio recording of Trump having dinner with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, hencemen to Rudy Guiliani (whom Trump has insisted he does not know) and ordering the removal of the American Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. Google it.
Based on media notes on the legal briefs filed by Trump's impeachment lawyers, and on a brief appearance by Presidential defense lawyer Jay Sekulow before the cameras just a few minutes ago, I'm guessing that the Trump defense is gonna concentrate on ‛playing to the base’ as it were; they'll be working to impress Trump himself (who'll then tweet his approval and that'll signal FoxNews and the dedicated Trumpkins for the appropriate public raptures). A lot of this will concentrate on sliming Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and on playing up the ‛pity, pity’ whining that Trump is famous for.
Problem is, they'll be playing for the audience of one in front of any audience of many, and they'll be doing this in public, before non-Trumpkins who're tuning in to see what's happening this time (in rather larger numbers than bothered with the House hearings).
Playing to Trump and the dedicated Trumpkins might not look as good on TV as Trump thinks it will--at least not to the non-Trumpkins watching, and he's not got enough dedicated Trumpkins to win in 2020 with just them. So, this looks like a risk to me, risk is he beats the impeachment but damages his reëlection campaign. Nevertheless, he's been winning with this formula up 'til now; so, maybe it'll continue to work, but it definitely looks like a risky bet to me.
We'll be finding out soon, beginning Saturday I reckon.
So, she'll not be the 50th vote, which could conceivably throw the tie decision to Chief Justice Roberts, not a safe harbor for Trump.
I would kind of like to see it end up in Roberts' court. I want to see what he would do. Will he really act in the best interests of a independent judiciary? Because I can see no good reason for not calling in witnesses. That really is part of a fair trial.
And if Trump has nothing to be afraid of, he shouldn't fear witnesses.
...no bounce to the Chief Justice to break the tie.
McConnell covered all his bases.
Breaking news that there's an audio recording of Trump having dinner with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, hencemen to Rudy Guiliani (whom Trump has insisted he does not know) and ordering the removal of the American Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
Wait long enough and it makes the news. I just heard that tonight. Is anyone surprised that he lied? I mean, really? It's what he does.
McConnell's looking to get a vote for acquittal by Friday. Politico
Yup, the quicker he sweeps it under the rug, the better. In his and Trump's view.
Trump's view of what to do here isn't really clear. He's been all over the board on that question. He's moved from urging the Senate to take up a Motion to Dismiss (prior to even allowing the House Managers to present their case--which finished Friday evening) to demanding that the Senate perform the public investigation of the Bidens that he tried but failed to coerce from the Ukrainians.
McConnell, on the other hand, is simply making a mistake. Or so I do believe.
I've been working off the page that says the Republican Senate is supposed to whitewash Trump ASAP.
Then, after the whitewash is a done deal, then the evidence of Trump's guilt continues to come out in ever greater detail during the 2020 election season (the House investigations will continue) and the Republican Party, and particularly the Republican Senators up for reëlection, are punished for whitewashing Trump, and they lose their Senate majority. That's my plan. (Pelosi's plan as well, I think. Probably Schumer's as well, but he's necessarily been a support player to Pelosi.)
Only after a thumpin' in the Senate races will what remains of the Republican Party rethink their sell-out to Trump.
That's the best outcome that's reasonable to hope for. Hoping for anything better is a pipe-dream. The Republican majority Senate was never going to sanction Trump; wasn't gonna happen. An entirely blatant whitewash of Trump is the next best thing.
Ordinarily McConnell doesn't make this kind of mistake.
However, he is, historically, extremely risk-averse, and he seems to fear most that things could get significantly worse. He's making his calculation based on his fear that Murkowski and perhaps even a fifth Republican might join Susan Collins and Mitt Romney in calling for witnesses if he gives this time to fester. (He could usually be confident that if there were there only the four then he Susan Collins could be counted on to switch back and deny the Democrats the 51st vote they seek--he's afraid that agreement won't hold this time--Collins could, conceivably, roll on him him on that one, just as John McCain famously did in the Republicans' almost but not quite successful effort to repeal ObamaCare in the summer of 2018.)
And, as if on cue, excerpts from John Bolton's new book leak to the New York Times, implicating Bill Barr among others.
After a couple of days during which the "mainstream" media has speculated that the leak of John Bolton's book might change the Republican Senators' calculations on calling impeachment witnesses, it's looking like the Washington journalist types are finally beginning to catch a glimmer of the truth state of affairs. Ain't gonna be no witnesses. The whitewash shall proceed as scheduled.
The WallStreetJournal is reporting that McConnell doesn't have his vote count locked down yet. I'm dubious. It may well be that McConnell is wanting it to look like they actually considered taking evidence, so's to lessen the blowback aftet Trump is acquitted and the evidence keeps mounting against him. But I don't think it's real.
I suspect that McConnell really can't control what some Republican Senators will do. They may actually have minds of their own and might do the right thing because they do have some shred of integrity left.
"I suspect that McConnell really can't control what some
Republican Senators will do."
They'd have to be willing to buck Trump as well.
Mitt Romney has his own ‘base’ in the Mormon establishment and Lisa Murkowski ran as an independent after she was denied the Republican Party nomination last time and then won the general election in a three way race, only to rejoin the Republican Party after she'd won.
Other than those two I think it's more likely that we'll find red-state Democrats voting to acquit Trump (on the theory that he's gonna walk anyway so why should they blow their own reëlection in a Trump-friendly rural state).
‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾
(Susan Collins' reputation as an independent is largely a fraud; she has consistently been "independent" only when McConnell doesn't really need her to vote his way; it's too consistent a pattern over too long a time span to be coincidental.)
It's been a generally good day for the Democrats. The President's attorneys have given them some great campaign themes and ads for November.
In confirmation of a suspicion I had last night when I first heard that the White House had declared John Bolton's book to be classified, "Top Secret", and that it could not to be published, the WashingtonPost has confirmed that the Trump administration did not specify any sections that actually were classified or that even alluded to classified information. (This is a conspicuous break with practice and precedent.)
It sounds like we will find out tonight whether or not the Republicans have enough votes to deny witnesses. Lamar Alexander has said he will make public his position. And it appears that his may be the deciding vote.
"…the Republicans have enough votes to deny witnesses."
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The President's lawyers were a little more subdued today; they didn't give us any particularly glaring examples of overreach for the Democrats to use against their senators in the 2020 elections (or, at least, nothing to match the stuff they dropped yesterday).
But, neither did they let Dershowitz in front of a camera again--kept his ass on ice today.
Lookin' like Dershowitz is gonna be the latest addition to a string of people whose professional reputations have not survived close association with President Trump.
Long-shot prediction for tomorrow's proceedings: They don't even get around to the four hours scheduled for ‛argument’ before McConnell brings it up for a vote to end the proceedings and declare Trump exonerated. No argument about witnesses allowed; no deliberations either; just ‛bang’ - done, and it's all over in time for Trump to strut his stuff for the evening news on Friday.
It would appear that my "long-shot" prediction ↑↑ won't play out. Supposedly Trump's lawyers want more time to prepare their closing arguments for the Senate "trial" (instead of blowing past their closing arguments as I'd figured they'd try to do) Politico So, expectations among Republicans are that McConnell will ask for a temporary delay, taking the closing arguments into next week, and not seek to finish it up today.
The President's lawyers did not get their delay. They're being obliged to begin their arguments on witnesses right now. (And McConnell asked for a 15 minute recess which lasted past 50 minutes instead, so it looks like he's working things out on the fly at this point.)
I just wandered past a television and noticed they were doing another quorum call in the Senate. I think that's the second I've wandered past today. Plus there was the extended break just before 3:00 pm (CST). All this suggests McConnell is having some difficulty putting together an end-game that satisfies all his Republican Senators. They managed to agree on kiboshing further witnesses, but seem to be scatted about how to wrap things up. And McConnell doesn't want to give the Democrats an opening to take back the floor somehow and start introducing motions offering amendments his guys don't want to deal with. So, we have these delays while he gets out front of his slim majority again.
Lost in the impeachment noise, the Dow-Jones index lost better than 600 points today. That's the worst one-day hit since the semi-scare back in August.
Lookin' like Dershowitz is gonna be the latest addition to a string of people whose professional reputations have not survived close association with President Trump.
I actually used to think him an intelligent person. Shows you what I know.
The headline in my morning paper:
"GOP blocks Trump witnesses"
Just revealed, the DOJ has two dozen emails showing Trump was involved in the aid freeze to Ukraine.
I wonder will the American people ever wake up and smell the coffee?
How many drips of incriminating evidence do they need?
Lost in the impeachment noise, the Dow-Jones index lost better than 600 points today. That's the worst one-day hit since the semi-scare back in August.
Don't think it's the looming acquittal of a guilty man. No, that's not what they care about. It's the looming specter of an out of control virus spreading over the planet.
The bugs will win in the end...
"I actually used to think him an intelligent person."
He's suffered these last few years with a common affliction of the aged. He's suffering a lack of fame; the withdrawal symptoms were fairly clear here. Once considered a mighty legal thinker, he found that a large part of the population had forgotten who he was, or were young enough to have never had known of him in the first place. He was no longer called upon to opine wisely from the editorial segments of the television shows he used to regularly attend. He was, essentially, washed up, passed by, and he suffered grievously from the lack of fame. (Paul Manafort is another example. In fact, lots of the players around Trump seem to have been suffered this particular affliction.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"How many drips of incriminating evidence do they need?"
If you're talking about the dedicated Trumpkins…. Evidence is irrelevant. It's not news to them. They already knew.
They don't care!
There's no particular point in trying to make them care. (They would prefer to not be obliged to admit to knowing, but that's a minor matter in the greater scheme of things.) They're motivated by habits and practices and grudges that we can't even begin to address by November.
So, the point is to get the smaller remaining section of non-Trumpkin swing voters firmly planted against Trump by November, not to worry 'bout reclaiming any vestiges of patriotism (if indeed there are any such vestiges) on the part of the dedicated Trumpkins.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Don't think it's the looming acquittal of a guilty man."
Neither do I. But it remains true that a significant portion of the non-politically intense, low-information voters give the sitting President way too much credit for a booming economy not of his own making and also too much blame for an economic slump likewise not of his own making. A bad view of the economic outlook on the part of John Q. Public is bad for Trump--no matter whether he deserves that or not, just as a good economic outlook is good for Trump whether he deserves it or not. Better to avoid economic disruption if possible, but if it's gonna happen, before November would be better than after November.
Better to avoid economic disruption if possible, but if it's gonna happen, before November would be better than after November.
A sad, but true fact.
We did discover what was the hold-up in taking the impeachment vote to acquit Trump last Friday.
A bunch of the Republican Senators were demanding (successfully, as it turns out) that they be given time to speechify from the Senate floor, for the cameras, explaining why they were voting to acquit Trump.
Turns out they're still afraid (more afraid of Trump and his dedicated Trumpkins, but still afraid of the general election).
Post a Comment