NYT is spouting every headline they can imagine to shift votes toward Trump, and not just lately. Their entire editorial focus is to cast confusion on Democrats’ prospects. They should be recognized as firmly partisan and no longer serving a journalistic purpose. Unfortunate, but that’s the times in which we live.

Declining birth rate is not a problem that requires fixing, it is a mercifully wise collective decision by intelligent creatures who’ve become educated and aware enough of their place in the biosphere to recognize the destructive effects of their own overpopulation. The idea that declining birth rate is decidedly NOT economic - lower birth rate does not arise among the poor and uneducated in the world.

There is no problem in today’s world that would be mitigated by increasing birth rate. I live in a region where there is a burgeoning elderly population and sometimes people say - we need more young people in this economy! But that does not mean that having more babies here is any help: by the time they are adults, the wave of excess elderly people will be gone. Economic crises are far more immediate than generational solutions - if a region lacks workers, economic forces are more effective to relocate workers than biologically growing new ones. Of course, governments often fail to anticipate needs and adjust migration policies in a timely way, or housing policies, or other such issues that create barriers contrary to the economic forces.

It is entirely logical to nationalize package deliver! We should have an organization that follows regular routes all across America and delivers whatever packages, etc. people need! We could call it something like UPS; maybe USPS?!

I get about as many deliveries by parcel post as by UPS. Nothing can stop the US Mail

The problem of democracy has always been the short attention span of the electorate. People make emotional decisions; “throw the bums out” - which of course it is sometimes right to be frustrated and take a new direction - but sometimes cooler heads must be allowed to prevail. We democratically chose to have that non-democratic institution, no different than various other government institutions that we put in authority over our day-to-day activities (police, and a whole range of other government “services”, even the IRS!).

You would think “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” -DJT Jan 2016 would have pretty much filtered the US population into two camps long ago. The “swing” population that is reflected in every poll since then is a gaggle of . . . I don’t know . . . forgetful? inattentive? I am trying not to be invective, no matter what.

Monsanto of the Sea?! This article fear-mongers vague “unintended consequences” as an ethical shortcoming of what they admit seems like a pretty solid concept for sequestering carbon - while never once mentioning the major unintended consequences of NOT trying to sequester carbon.

Capturing carbon in biomass is always a somewhat risky proposition by itself, because biomass can decompose and re-release the carbon. But even if the permanence is low right now, developing the skill of seaweed farming or any other carbon removal technology is a win - we can figure out how to increase permanence later as we scale up. No technology is fully developed at inception.