Western society, demographics, and the future - EXCELLENT article

[GoRon]

your contention requires a belief that our entire civilization is some sort of ponzi scheme

Welfare states are a ponzi scheme. Our social security is a ponzi scheme. They are doomed to bankrupt the societies that go down that road.

It is not a war on radical islam as the author claims.

Tell that to the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Al-Qaida in Iraq. The guys down in Gitmo may have a different opinion also. The radical Islamists blowing people up in resturaunts, buses etc.. also have a different take than you.

all the population decline stuff is rubbish because he's looking at one decade out of thousands and trying to extrapolate the end of the world. offhand, i'd say it's cyclical, and that the next generation will have another baby boom before the current baby boomers die off. i don't expect to ever see an absolute reduction in population (barring wars and whatnot) until we have actually, undeniably, exhausted the resources of this planet.

I am not saying you are wrong but you haven't provided any evidence that he is wrong. All you have done is spout off a bunch of your preconceptions.

 

[Art Eatman]

It is known fact that as societies become more economically successful, the birth rates decline. That's data from before WW II and onward, that I've read. Steyn's numbers may be from current data, but they are merely a continuance of a long-term trend.

Certain Islamics have attempted to persuade governments to allow a section of a city to impose Sharia, in those areas where Islamics are the predominant population group. This has happened in London, and in some city in Canada. Source? Mainstream media.

During the riots in France, French police were told (even by non-rioters) that they should stay out of the Algerian areas, as, "This is our area. Ours. You don't belong here." I saw one news article stating that the same attitude exists in Denmark in Islamic areas.

I conclude that one need not be a fundamentalist Christian to see that there are some serious problems from SOME Islamics.

Sure, the problem-child Islamics are a small percentage of all Islamics. I can only note that 0.1% of a billion is a million.

It's possible that Steyn's concerns are exaggerated. But just from numbers which are available on an everyday basis, it strikes me as foolish to dismiss his thesis without it giving some objective thought.

He's referring to an existing and not-short set of trends. The question is whether these trends will continue, not whether he's nutzoidal.

Art

 

[taliv]

Do you think the governments of the West to have the belief in themselves to push such an agenda? Do you think that enough of their populations would forego welfare statism, embrace their lost Christianity, and put their, ahh, "nose to the grindstone?" Do the mainline churches in western europe even believe in G-d anymore? All the churches I saw in my tour through Switzerland were museums, save one.

europe? no. American? yes
eventually, they will be forced to
doubtful

Welfare states are a ponzi scheme. Our social security is a ponzi scheme. They are doomed to bankrupt the societies that go down that road.

true, but i didn't say they weren't. i was talking about western civilization, which doesn't itself depend on increasing population to sustain itself.

but to your point, what exactly do you think will happen when the welfare system of europe collapses? when they get to the point that the EU and UN can't borrow more money to make payments? it'll probably involve a lot of starvation and quite a lot of rock throwing and car burning, but that will peter out long before western civilization disappears.

Tell that to the Taliban, Al-Qaida and the Al-Qaida in Iraq. The guys down in Gitmo may have a different opinion also. The radical Islamists blowing people up in resturaunts, buses etc.. also have a different take than you.

sure, that's PART of the war, but it's not the whole war, which makes calling it a war on islam pretty stupid.
besides , the war on terror isn't addressing ANY of the concerns the author has about the demise of western civilization.

I am not saying you are wrong but you haven't provided any evidence that he is wrong. All you have done is spout off a bunch of your preconceptions.

i haven't set about proving he's "wrong". he made a claim and offered no support of that claim.


ok, let's take a different look at this issue

assume for the sake of argument that western civilization, euro and america are run by THRers. welfare is minimal, economy is fine, every citizen has at least a dozen fully automatic EBRs, the borders are closed, and freedom of speech and religion is held in high regard...

however, birthrates among WASPs are very low, and non-violent muslim citizens are breeding like rabbits. although they're non-violent and productive members of society (they'd have to be, as there's no welfare to support them otherwise), it's no secret that once they reach 51% of the population, women will be forced to cover themselves in public, religion will be regulated and you can kiss bacon and sausage biscuits goodbye, and christmas, too.


occam's razor, anyone? you see, the "problem" is occuring without multiculturalism or "tolerance" or welfare. welfare is a different and unrelated issue. look at GM's pension issues, where islam isn't involved, as an example. sure, it's bad. but it's still unrelated. same for multiculturalism.

thus, back in the real world, if we were all to implement Mr. Steyn's thinnly veiled suggestions:

• super-glue the 10 commandments to every government orafice
• take all the muslims off welfare
• institute the draft for christmas carollers

we would accomplish what exactly?

hey, i wouldn't mind if we did that, you know. it's just that it doesn't solve "the problem". at the VERY BEST, it briefly delays it.


so really, what exactly do you propose we do?
forbid them to reproduce?
make a law regarding their religion?
deny their right to vote?

hmm... those laws look familiar. i wonder where i've seen them before...

 

[Gordon Fink]

And y’all wonder why we “godless materialists” insist on the separation of church and state.

~G. Fink

 

[Herself]

all the population decline stuff is rubbish because he's looking at one decade out of thousands and trying to extrapolate the end of the world. offhand, i'd say it's cyclical, and that the next generation will have another baby boom before the current baby boomers die off. i don't expect to ever see an absolute reduction in population (barring wars and whatnot) until we have actually, undeniably, exhausted the resources of this planet.

Nope. While I believe Steyn's thesis is rubbish, the birth rate of nations declines as their wealth increases. The birth rate in the United States has been dropping since the early 19th century, and even the biggest "baby booms" are just joggling around the overall trend. The population increases as long as the birth rate is greater than the replacement rate, of course.

But here's the deal: J. Average Muslim moves in, with a what, 10% or less chance he's a wild-eyed Whabist or similar, gets a job at the Gag'n'Go, and begins to become affluent. Perhaps not on your terms, but he's got a car, and a TV and DVD player and... And, well, his contribution to the birth rate of Muslims generally declines.

It's self-limiting. Riots and disaffected youth? So what. (It's not "so what" when they're tipping your car over; but look at the wider trend). Always happens any time the "have-nots" rub up against the "haves" and get enough ahead of the rat race to see how much farther they have to go.

Whack-jobs and extremists show up in the greatest numbers as a movement or an idea is ending. That is why they are so riled: their own inescapable end is in sight.

Radical Islam is doomed, doomed in much the same way the Soviet Union was doomed: it can't deliver cultural and material goods that can compete with what the West offers. There are persistent reports that several of the 9/11 hijackers spent some of their last few hours on Earth in a strip club. There's some good, religious boys for you, immune to Western Tempations.... If hardcore radical Islam can't even convince the most determined of the glory-hound goofballhadeen to toe the mark, it's not going to have much impact on the guy who does his prayers and gets up and goes back to watching "Nip/Tuck."

[snip]

but the point again, is that the author claims the war on terror is a war against islam. how exactly does that support his premise that western civ is about to become extinct? it makes no sense. again, he's just tossing out emotionally loaded terms because he knows that most of his readers think the war on terror is really jsut a PC term for the war on brown people, and they won't look at his argument critically. they'll just accept it

He's essentially trying to play the same game as the mad mullahs: convince the convincable that This Is It, the big battle for the soul of the Earth. Then he'll sit back and chortle as the blood flows freely, as it has done so many times in human history. And there has never been a shortage of people who will do so on the handy old standby of race.

The West may well be in its final days, but what will replace it will look about as much like our present barbarians at the gates as Europe under Charlemane looked like Arminius's band of Huns: not very.

--Herself

 

[Oleg Volk]

small town in the Washington DC area is seeking to pass an ordinance that says that a single family dwelling may only house a single family, ie: not a multiple string of family members. (ie move in your whole tribe).

That violates the property rights of the home owners...should be struck down on that basis alone. If I wish to have my parents or cousins or friends move in with me, that should be my choice. People wishing to deny me the use of my own house out not be able to impose their wills on me.

 

[taliv]

herself, my statement about population was too broad. i agree with all the other stuff you said

oleg, totally agree

 

[longeyes]

But here's the deal: J. Average Muslim moves in, with a what, 10% or less chance he's a wild-eyed Whabist or similar, gets a job at the Gag'n'Go, and begins to become affluent. Perhaps not on your terms, but he's got a car, and a TV and DVD player and... And, well, his contribution to the birth rate of Muslims generally declines.

What's the educational drop-out rate for Muslims in France? J. Average Muslim isn't assimilating that well over there either, from what I read. Doesn't want to, just wants the Western toys. If he's got a car, a tv, and a dvd player, it probably came thanks to the largesse of Jacques Chirac.

The old way assumed assimilation. The new way won't. That's where the concern comes from.

I don't know where you get your 10 per cent Wahhabist figure--wishful thinking?

 

[longeyes]

That violates the property rights of the home owners...should be struck down on that basis alone. If I wish to have my parents or cousins or friends move in with me, that should be my choice. People wishing to deny me the use of my own house out not be able to impose their wills on me.

So illegal alien "safe houses" on Long Island, with 64 men living in one house, floors entirely covered by mattresses--that's okay with you? No concerns about health issues? There are nuisance laws to cover this sort of thing. Even libertarians have neighbors.

 

[Herself]

Longeyes, if he's got a car, a TV and DVD player, he's already assimilating! It's too late for him and his family; the West has already got a hold on them. We're insidious. Remember when the Reds showed up to hang us? They couldn't afford the rope!

As for the "10%" number, it is a ballpark. Reported numbers vary hugely and are clearly stroked to support various agendas. Cope.

--Herself

PS: Yes, libertarians do have neighbors. And as long as their neighbors mind their own business and are quiet about it, libertarians don't care what sort of peaceful activities the neighbors are up to: reading detective novels, sleeping 35 to a room, having group sex, worship services of any flavor or cooking cabbage. Don't care. Just keep the noise down. YMMV -- but they've got your nibby self outnumbered, hombre!


--H

 

[longeyes]

Hey, I'm into property rights too. But we live in social units and some rules must prevail. Somehow 64 in a room having group sex doesn't appeal; maybe I'm getting old...

 

[Herself]

Hey, I'm into property rights too. But we live in social units and some rules must prevail. Somehow 64 in a room having group sex doesn't appeal; maybe I'm getting old...

It doesn't happen to appeal to me, either; but why would that give me any right to prevent my neighbors from doing it in the privacy of their own home if it appealed to them?

We aren't our neighbors -- and I don't know about you but that's something I thank a beneficient Providence for every day -- and they're not us. And we're not in the Army. There's no reason why they should be just like us, or us like them. Or that we should even like each other. Or run each other's lives.

To heck with them. Why make rules for the goofballs next door? We're only in a "social unit" when we are interacting with one another.

--Herself

 

[Wllm. Legrand]

Errr....religion, geographic origin and ethnicity all mixed together?

Yes..it's called "culture".

The "racism" tag is bogus horse***t. When two cultures (or more) with differing values (that's what makes them 'different') encounter each other, there is usually one that comes out on top, i.e., one is assimilated. Used to be the way here..no more.

The Moslems have a different culture; American blacks, for the most part and by their own choice, have a different culture, and the poor (mind you, the POOR, not the upper class) of Central and South America have a different culture.

That's the way it is, though you could not say such at most institutions of "higher" education..and I use the term "higher" and "education" very loosely.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I wonder why so many people that push a particular pesimistic future scenario feel a need to disparage others. There are several real trends that, if not changed, could spell disaster for the more liberal cultures (i.e., "the West"). I think the environmental concerns he ridicules are a lot more likely and based on solid scientific reasoning than his worries.

That is not to say that I disagree with all that he has to say. Garret Hardin actually made much the same case regarding voluntary population reduction, though he had the sense to see the overall goal of population reduction as desirable.

 

[Art Eatman]

From the FWIW department:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/05/nbirth05.xml

Looks like that makes a notable demographic shift, and it's part of a long-term trend...

Separately, in all this:

It seems to me that there are rates of immigration which are easily dealt with. The U.S. is an obvious example, insofar as past years. Whether Italian or Irish; Mexican or Chinese, the amount of elbow room in a still-expanding geography made it fairly easy for assimilation to occur. Sure, early problems, but relatively short-lived. It was fairly easy to move out of the ghettoes to work elsewhere. We had the safety valve of the midwest and the west.

Looks like that now, the influx is at a greater rate than we can handle. It's the vast numbers that are causing our problems here, not illegal immigration in and of itself. When you're already in budget trouble at the state level, and you find net losses directly attributable to illegals, the entire system becomes strained. Witness, e.g., California's loss of emergency rooms and hospitals to financial burdens which are largely due to illegals.

However, we're still different from Europe. We're built to inculcate assimilation in a generation or two. They aren't. The Algerians have been citizens but separate in France for some three generations that I personally know of. That segreation plus other social differences and problems mean trouble there for a long time to come.

Art