Sexual minority rights can be used as a litmus test for whether a country is truly democratic.

Source www.cato.org/blog/democracies-autocracies-same-sex-unions.

I have often thought that sexual minority rights can be used as a litmus test for whether a country is democratic or authoritarian. It seems quite accurate. I ran the idea past AI and found that there is quite a bit of writing about that connection. Here is one of the interesting articles that came up in my search including a clear graphic.

I've also thought that the world is struggling to provide for over 8 billion people so it doesn't make sense to persecute people who are less likely to procreate.

Coming in AI's response is this sentence, "Authoritarian regimes do not look at population through an ecological lens; they look at it through the lens of economic and military power."

Now phasing in my own words, I see competition between countries and races for power vested in workers and solders. This goes back to ancient times, but could lead to mass die-off of populations today. Today's technology has much stronger impact on the environment than before. Old thinking becomes obsolete.

Old ideas continue to be propelled as much of the world is facing a demographic shift as population growth slows down. More retired people versus young workers. This causes countries to push "pro-natalist" policies viewing traditional families as units to replace the workforce.

On the other hand, democracies face a solution to the possible worker shortage as an overwhelming number of migrants wish to relocate to those countries as they flee the more authoritarian and war torn societies. This is overwhelming existing infrastructure for housing, transportation, water supply and so forth. Rather than embracing this new talent pool, democracies are tending toward tighter restrictions on immigration.

As time goes on, the need for labor may be reduced due to AI and automation as well.

Will Alberta become the 51st US state? No, but an even dumber idea is for Alberta to become an independent country.

That referendum is being voted on Oct 19 and it isn't expected to pass. If Alberta was to leave the great nation of Canada, it would be North America's only landlocked country; something like Mongolia, which is stuck between Russia and China.

Part of this referendum is probably for political leverage as that landlocked province wishes to push more oil and gas out through pipelines to the BC coast. This helps to avoid depenency on the now more unfriendly US, for bringing product to market.

Oil and gas consumption is still a reality around the world. Transition to greener energy is happening too slowly as demand and populations continue to grow around the world.

Much of the world's fossil fuel supply comes from authoritarian, places in the troubled Middle East as well as Russia. There is the opportunity for Canada, a more democratic society that respects human and gay rights, to cash in on supplying more of that continued world demand.

Some Canadians say it is better to produce the oil and gas in Canada where there are more environmental controls. Much of the consuming world is in crisis with cutoffs of supply from the war torn and troubled parts of the world.

Living in Bellingham, WA. I listen to lots of Canadian news on the radio.

Can US society become more nimble for transformational change and remain less authoritarian?

China's economy is going green at a fast pace. Things are turning around from the time when it's large population pushed it toward high coal consumption. Now it's leading the world in renewable energy and electric vehicle development.

In some ways, a less democratic society has the ability to be more nimble at making transformational change. Populism and process can hamper transitions in USA due to various forms of NIMBYism.

Still, I like USA's freedom of speech for innovation. It's just that people, in USA, lookout too much for narrow self interests, versus the big picture. People lack patience and they often fear change.

We can't "have it all," but we can do it better, even in a democracy - that is if we are still a democracy.

There may be a flaw in the idea that the Demographic Transition to sustainable population depends on prosperity.

During college I studied something called the Demographic Transition. It basically said that before there was modern medicine and sanitation, both deathrates and birthrates were high. As deathrates decline, there comes a transition period where birthrates remain high and populations explode. As time goes on, this is followed by a drop in birthrates and stable population.

Economic development was seen as the key to a stable world of low death and sustainable population. Problem is, now that the world has over 8 billion people, economic development, for all those people, can bring ecological catastrophe. The good news is that aside from economic development, there can be a change in value systems. Many poor countries have been able to reduce their birthrates without necessarily becoming rich. Others, however, have lagged behind in reducing birthrates. This is one reason why I connect issues like gay rights, feminism and overall modernity to sustainability. Getting rich doesn't necessarily have to be a prerequisite for sustainable cultures with low deathrates.

Simple living and less materialistic aspirations, combined with modern values on sexuality, are needed.

Meanwhile, the idea that prosperity and material wealth is the key to sustainable populations has it's problems. Yes, people do need enough to survive, but much of the opulent wealth in the world is unneeded. Over consumption in rich nations, but also the opulent wealth of leaders in many poor nations is a problem. Military spending is another large and growing problem worldwide. Rich nations are now ramping up their military budgets while many poor nations have long spent large percentages of their small GDPs on warfare.

Here is something I just thought of. Population growth is a key to economic prosperity. These days, as the world's demographic transition is trending toward lower birthrates, many are worried that less young people can bring economic stagnation. As populations age, there are less young people to pay into Social Security, for instance. This creates an incentive to try an boost population growth.

I think the philosophy behind the Demographic Transition is broken. The road to sustainable population, through increasing prosperity, is an environmental minefield. Changing values about overall culture and sexuality are needed instead.

Here are some things to ask about the future.

Will more labor be needed in a world with more automation and AI technology?

Another question is, if there is a labor shortage, why don't richer countries jump at the chance to fill their labor shortage needs with immigration? There is no shortage of people wishing to migrate to better living situations, worldwide.

Most rich countries in the world are now cutting back on immigration. This might be because all 8 billion people, in the world, can't live like people live in rich countries. As people migrate to rich countries, it does put strains on housing, water, resources and transportation systems as people adopt richer lifestyles. Just look at the traffic. This, of course also assumes dependency on the automobile and the vast amount of space it takes up for parking and transportation.

Things need to be done differently. Our value systems need to change all over the world. Just increasing prosperity will not fix it.

Anti immigration sentiment is one factor indicating that earth may be overpopulated.

It seems like anti immigration sentiment, that has arisen in so many countries over recent years, is a symptom of overpopulation. Can all 8 billion plus people, on this planet, live the lifestyles of richer nations; especially the USA? Two things come to mind related to the carrying capacity of this planet. One is the number of people and the other is the way people live. I think there is no hard number for "capacity" of the planet, unlike the fire department capacity ratings for auditoriums. This depends a lot on how people live and create the economies of various nations.

Capacity for the planet, is a fuzzy number. For instance a green energy economy might be able to accommodate more people than a fossil fuel economy can in the long run. I say "might" as there is debate about whether green technology can sustain our consumptive economy today, versus the high energy density of fossil fuels.

Conceivably, we could accommodate large populations, but do we have the will to make it work? It seems like there is lots of pushback against growth that manifests itself in many ways. Pushback against immigration as well as pushback against new construction, such as housing, in various neighborhoods. Our infrastructure of roads, water systems, power systems and so forth must expand and be made more green, but there is pushback against that as well.

New people, such as from immigration, can bring new talents and vitality to a region; especially as populations age. At the same time, there are downsides of increasing populations. It's not the fault of the individuals who are seeking better lives. It's just the situation of population and consumption as a whole.

Will a greener China be the adult in the room during Trump's visit?

China's government may look like the adults in the room when Trump visits China. They are quickly transitioning toward green energy while the US government is rededicating its efforts to fossil fuels. China still does burn lots of coal, but it has over 1 billion people to serve. While China progresses past that, the Trump Administration seems to want to go back to the past.

Coal trains do travel through Bellingham on their way to ships, waiting in Canada, for Asian ports, but China is making progress with solar, railroads and so forth. Their system may be more authoritarian than ours, but it's less likely that populism will push China erratically. As for war in the Middle East, China seems well prepared for oil shortages in the long run. Less reckless in its foreign relations.

Could conservative religions be leading the world to declining population due to more deaths instead of fewer births?

Conservative religious values, that have contributed to the rise of the Republican Party, are also leading to more deaths of children and adults around the world. They were talking about the cuts to USAID in Canadian radio today. The US has made big cuts, but other countries, including Canada and European countries, are making cuts as well. This, to conserve money, speaking of conservative.

I've often thought that the world may soon be entering an era of declining population which could also conserve the environment. Still, this is more painful than less conservative values would be.

More generosity could help budgets, due to increasing prosperity for US and Canadian farmers. US farmers are among the first to feel Elon Musk's act of tossing USAID into the woodchipper, as he once put it. The woodchipper also cuts programs to deal with birth control which would be a less painful way to deal with the overwhelming numbers of people in need.

Ironic if people who call themselves right to lifers are backing this.

Much of the increase in deaths is due to lack of medical care around the world. Food, fuel and fertilizer shortages will add to the problems. More money is being spent, around the world, on military budgets. NATO countries are being asked to ramp up military spending and they are responding due to increasing threats, or at least perceived increasing threats, around the world.

The silver lining, in all of this, is that public opinions do change. They swing back and forth like pendulums. Even religion doesn't always have to be a force pushing politics to conservatism.

In Bellingham, section of South Bay Trail is now temporarily closed due to more housing construction.

There is a street detour. I've mapped my own detour which I modified for going north along 12th. The main Boulevard route works okay for going south.

My route avoids crossing the boulevard to northbound side where there might not be a stoplight or flashing crosswalk. One can ride on sidewalk, however.

Detour follows the main boulevard, but for going northbound, I prefer 12th. This avoids using 10th and crossing the boulevard, to northbound side, where there isn't a light. the main boulevard, in that area is called 11th St.

Graffiti on a "trail closed" sign. Yes. Bellingham is a popular city. There is population and economic growth.

Toward the north end of 12th (at Adams ) there is a flashing crosswalk across the boulevard at the access road to Boulevard Park.

I have often used South Bay Trail Route between downtown and Fairhaven District. Then come back north through Western Washington University for variety and a fitness hill climb, myself.

There are various ways to go.

My worst case pessimistic population scenario could be avoided.

Our world of over 8 billion people could embrace sustainable economics aided by alternative lifestyles and alternative energy. Instead there has been lots of mostly rightwing politics bringing us things like the anti gay laws in Senigal and Camaroon west Africa plus Donald Trump and more cutoff of forgien aid.

There are borders closing to refugees around the world as politics is affected by flows of refugees that have overwhelmed local infrastructures, housing and resources. Now we have war with blockades of the Straights of Hormuz leading to a worldwide fertilizer shortage among other things. Famine is likely on the increase around the world.

One of my senarios of the future is a significant increase in the deathrate possibly leading to a measurable decline in world population. This, stabalizing population versus choices for sustainable lifestyles and economics. Ironically rightwingers often talk about the sanctity of life when they focus only on abortion. Other killing and famine seems to matter less.

In the longrun, I have a senario where the world eventually recovers from the period of famine and comes to its sences; like learning the hard way. Eventually we could embrace more sustainable lifestyles, values and economics. Eventually there could be a period of population stability and rebuilding of economies, but in the meantime world famine could be so large as to overshadow any famine in recent times.

The third world would, as usual, is hit hardest by this partial dieoff of the human race.

Of course this is just one senario I think about. It's not inevitable. It's one somewhat bleak senario, but at least it's not the extinction of the human race or even the total collapse of modern, technological society. It's just what some might call a correction.

There is no shortage of young workers eager to migrate to less repressive societies.

As for some people's fear about declining birthrates I say.

If western democracies, with low birth rates, need more young workers in their economies, there is no shortage of talented young people eager to immigrate to less repressive societies. No need to raise the local birthrate.

Reducing the birthrate is more humane than closing the borders against migration and supporting war.

The conservative, fundamentalist branches of religion are often used to justify war on both sides of a war. They are also used to promote population growth, versus the cultural values that reduce population growth, such as the broad concept of "alternative lifestyles."

Reducing population growth is a more humane way to deal with things than closing borders, cutting off foreign aid and promoting war.

When mass migration and the problems of the world become overwhelming to the housing, infrastructure and environments of various localities, our old fashioned value systems seem to choose the less humane solutions.

It's not just that there are too many people on earth, it's also the way people wish to live.

There are too many people on earth if over half of the people want to live the so called American Dream of single family homes, car ownership, free parking. Population is one factor, the other factor is how people wish to live. What type of lifestyles and societies are people aspiring to have?

There is more than one variable in this equation. One is number of people while another is how we live. Other variables include technology, which can either improve the situation or make it worse. For instance nuclear technology can be used for weapons or for peaceful low carbon energy.

Conservative religious values and traditions could bring us back to a new Dark Ages.

This morning I woke up to some disgusting news that some countries in West Africa may be increasing the punishment for the crime of LGBTQ promotion and behavior. I ask, "do they want to force people into heterosexual lifestyles to increase population?" The world seems overpopulated as it is. Conservative religious tribalism.

I USA, we have conservative tribalism that takes the form of supporting Trump as he eliminates USAID. We also have conservative religion and tribalism that closes our borders. It's the return to old values and fighting over limited territory.

Someone once said they thought Israel was the most lethal country for it's size on earth. Yes, it is a very small country, but does pack a lethal punch. Before 1967 Israel had less than 8,000 square miles. Not much larger than Okanogan County, here in Washington State; our largest county at 5,266 square miles. We have another 38 counties in Washington State.

I sometimes think the so called holy land in the Middle East is called that due to the bullet holes and bomb craters.

Authoritarian religions reduce population through killing and starvation, but there are nicer alternatives.

Several years ago, I wrote that a worldwide turn toward authoritarian religious values could lead to a higher deathrate and possibly a large reduction in human population. A way to reduce overpopulation. This due, not to birth control or alternative lifestyles, but more wars and famine; an irony to the concept of valuing life.

It does seem like we are on the road toward that, but I still hold the hope that opinions can change and the world can change course. This "mass die-off" scenario can still be only one of many possible futures. We could still have a brighter future, depending on how things are managed. Even religious values don't have to be authoritarian. They can embrace innovation, open mindedness and diversity.

World population growth is slowing down, but there are still problems.

Population growth is slowing down so some worry that there aren't enough young workers for retires. Immigration can solve that problem for democracies where people want to move.

Population growth can also overwhelm housing and infrastructure leading to anti immigration sentiment rising in most of the world's democracies, however.

World population growth needs to slow down even more and another big change is the rising prosperity and expectations of prosperity around the world. That can use more energy and resources while contributing to resentment and instability, thus the world, as a whole, is spending more and more on military spending.

Forget the cost of bacon and eggs, housing is the main affordability worry for young people

Forget the cost of bacon and eggs, a recent poll shows 1/2 of young people, in USA, worry about the cost of housing more than all other items combined on the list according to this interesting podcast. Restrictive, single family zoning has been a huge problem.

There is a book called "Stuck: How privilege and property broke the engine of American opportunity." Yes, we've needed more housing. I would add that population growth is also a problem; that not mentioned in this interview. I think resentment toward immigration is partially rooted in lack of available housing.

The interview had a lot of information. First zoning was done in California in 1880s to keep Chinese laundries out of neighborhoods. By the 1940s single family zoning was adopted in, of all places Berkley, to protect against the less desirable renter class. The New Deal built more housing, but pushed more division by race. In the 1970s, Ralph Nader advocated strict permitting rules that allowed neighbor objections to kill almost all development.

Trump has some wacky ideas, such as the 50 year mortgage. He says he wants to make housing more affordable, but recently said he wishes to protect the wealth of existing homeowners. He wants their homes to still go up in price. His answer is low interest rates is to dump tons of money into the economy, I guess.

Overpopulation is still a big problem because so many people's aspirations clash with a crowded planet.

I still think overpopulation is a serious problem, though my thinking is nuanced. If more people lived my lifestyle, it would be less of a problem. I live car free so I don't use much space for parking at the places I visit. I live in a studio apartment with 97 other units in this building. It works out okay. I use less energy for home heating and transportation and I'm not a big consumer.

My lifestyle isn't for everyone, but if more folks adopted similar lifestyles, overpopulation would be less of a problem. Folks in developing countries and so forth, who aspire to live more the "traditional" American Dream makes accommodating our 8 billion+ world population difficult. Some folks worry about lower birthrates leading to less young workers for financing growing retirement generations. Yes, lower birthrates require economic adjustment.

As much as people complain about overwhelming immigration, it is a source of talented, young workers wanting to move to countries that more respect human rights. Young workers tend to want to escape war and repression. In an ideal world, this could be a benefit to open societies, but it has, instead, become a liability.

Immigration, that has overwhelmed affordable housing and infrastructure, has lead to a shift toward more authoritarian rightwing politics in many European nations as well as here in USA. My view of humanity has become more cynical, given the negative reaction to immigration. It seems to prove that there are, basically, too many people; if not too many people, at least too many, given our current planning and lifestyles. I can understand some anti immigration sentiment, given lack of affordable housing and so forth, but I would like to think that better planning of our landscape is possible.

Opposition to immigration is related to growth and income inequality which fuels the affordability crisis.

Rounding people up for deportation has become too draconian. There is still, however, a populist opposition to immigration. I see that as being related to the crisis in affordability. Population and economic growth, combined with income and wealth inequality, has made staying in the middle class harder for many Americans. We haven't been able to accommodate our growth well due to shortages of housing, transportation bottlenecks and so forth. Better planning and long term vision for sustainable life in USA is needed.

Worry about declining birthrates while there is an oversupply of refugees around the world doesn't make sense.

With an oversupply of people around the world seeking better countries to live in, it doesn't make sense that folks are worried about declining birthrates. I tend to avoid thinking about racism as a motivation for people's thinking, but there is a logic to blaming this situation on racism and or nationalism. Folks prefer growth from their own kind, rather than from other populations.

Growth, itself, whether from immigration or local births, does create it's own problems such as shortage of housing, increased traffic and environmental limits.

Still, lack of population growth effects the economy. Less young workers paying into Social Security, for instance.

We need to figure out how to have a sustainable economy that doesn't require constant increase in consumption while at the same time we are facing a huge amount of people wishing to migrate to better lands. Our tendencies toward tribalism, racism and nationalism, versus seeing the world as a global village, stands in the way.

Population size is an elephant in the COP30 room. Maybe a reason why India is reluctant to update its goals, though it's doing a lot to transition to cleaner energy.

On radio, I heard that India is refusing to update its goals for limiting carbon emissions. It's delegation responds by saying that India has done a lot in transitioning to solar and other alternative sources of energy. Still, India does burn lots of coal. I see the big problem as being population. India is now the most populated country in the world, surpassing even China. As India and other countries seek to bring people out of poverty, they use many sources of energy.

From what I hear the top 3 sources of carbon emissions in the world today, are China, USA and India with India being in third place. Each of these three nations have been attempting to transition to cleaner energy. China has now set some goals, but just setting goals isn't necessarily that effective. Just about every nation has broken the goals they have set at past climate summits.

Under Donald Trump, the official policy of the US government is now to tear up the goals, to consider climate change to be a hoax and to refuse to send a high level delegation to the climate talks in Belem Brasil. At the same time, various states and local centers of power, in the US, have sent people to the climate convention; for instance Governor Newsom arriving from California.

Whether setting goals and signing agreements makes a difference, or not, is a good question. Few countries have been able to meet their own commitments. It's possible that these conferences are just an exercise in futility and a waste of jet fuel for bringing delegates together. Still, they may serve a purpose as the leaders discuss climate change.

Population is not talked about enough. India is now on top of the world chart in size of its population. The size of our world's population is a big factor as so much of the world has been rising out of poverty, learning to drive cars and so forth, since my college days in the 1970s.