Posted on 02/15/2006 10:15:37 AM PST by Wombat101
MY interest in demography dates back to September 11, 2001, when a demographic group I hadn't hitherto given much thought managed to get my attention. I don't mean the, ah, unfortunate business with the planes and buildings and so forth, but the open cheering of the attacks by their co-religionists in Montreal, Yorkshire, Copenhagen and elsewhere. How many people knew there were fast-growing and culturally confident Muslim populations in Scandinavia?
Demography doesn't explain everything but it accounts for a good 90 per cent. The "who" is the best indicator of the what-where-when-and-why. Go on, pick a subject. Will Japan's economy return to the heady days of the 1980s when US businesses cowered in terror? Answer: No. Japan is exactly the same as it was in its heyday except for one fact: it stopped breeding and its population aged. Will China be the hyperpower of the 21st century? Answer: No. Its population will get old before it gets rich.
Check back with me in a century and we'll see who's right on that one. But here's one we know the answer to: Why is this newspaper published in the language of a tiny island on the other side of the earth? Why does Australia have an English Queen, English common law, English institutions? Because England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality.
By 1820 medical progress had so transformed British life that half the population was under the age of 15. Britain had the manpower to take, hold, settle and administer huge chunks of real estate around the planet. Had, say, China or Russia been first to overcome childhood mortality, the modern world would be very different.
What country today has half of its population under the age of 15? Italy has 14 per cent, the UK 18 per cent, Australia 20 per cent - and Saudi Arabia has 39 per cent, Pakistan 40 per cent and Yemen 47 per cent. Little Yemen, like little Britain 200 years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world - one way or another.
So, whether or not her remarks were "outrageous" (the Democrats' Lyn Allison), "insensitive" (the Greens' Rachel Siewert), "offensively discriminatory" (Sydney's Daily Telegraph) and "bigoted" (this newspaper), I salute Danna Vale. You don't have to agree with her argument that Australia's aborting itself out of recognition and that therefore Islam will inherit by default to think it's worth asking a couple of questions:
* Is abortion in society's interest?
* Can a society become more Muslim in its demographic character without also becoming more Muslim in its political and civil character?
The first one's easy: One can understand that 17-year-old Glenys working the late shift at Burger King and knocked up by some bloke who scrammed 10 minutes after conception may believe it's in her interest to exercise "a woman's right to choose", but the state has absolutely no interest in encouraging women in general to exercise that choice.
Quite the opposite: given that today's wee bairns are tomorrow's funders of otherwise unsustainable social programs, all responsible governments should be seriously natalist. The reason Europe, Russia and Japan are doomed boils down to a big lack of babies. Abortion isn't solely responsible for that but it's certainly part of the problem.
In attempting to refute Vale's argument, this newspaper praised the nation's maidenhood for lying back and thinking of Australia and getting the national fertility rate up from 1.73 births per woman in 2001 to 1.77, "well above rates in developed nations such as Italy, Spain, Japan, Germany and South Korea".
Well, pop the champagne corks! That's like saying Mark Latham's political prospects are better than Harold Holt's. The countries cited are going out of business. Seventeen European nations are now at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility - 1.3 births per woman, the point at which you're so far down the death spiral you can't pull out.
In theory, those countries will find their population halving every 40 years or so. In practice, it will be quicker than that, as the savvier youngsters figure there's no point sticking around a country that's turned into one big undertaker's waiting room: not every pimply burger flipper is going to want to work himself into the ground to pay for new shuffleboard courts at the old folks' home.
In 2005, some 137 million babies were born around the globe. That 137 million is the maximum number of 20-year-olds who'll be around in 2025. There are no more, no other sources; that's it, barring the introduction of mass accelerated cloning (which is by no means an impossibility). Who that 137 million are will determine the character of our world.
The shape's already becoming clear. Take those Danish cartoons. Every internet blogger wants to take a stand on principle alongside plucky little Denmark. But there's only five million of them. Whereas there are 20 million Muslims in Europe - officially. That's the equivalent of the Danes plus the Irish plus the Belgians plus the Estonians.
You do the mathematics. If you want the reality of Europe in a nutshell, walk into a supermarket belonging to the French chain Carrefour. You'll be greeted by a notice in Arabic: "Dear Clients, We express solidarity with the Islamic and Egyptian community. Carrefour doesn't carry Danish products." It's strictly business: they have three Danish customers and a gazillion Muslim ones. Retail sales-wise, they know which way their bread's buttered and it isn't with Lurpak.
That's Vale's second point. If a society chooses to outsource its breeding, who your suppliers are is not unimportant. "I've heard those very silly remarks made about immigrants to this country since I was a child," says Allison.
"If it wasn't the Greeks, it was the Italians or it was the Vietnamese."
Those are races or nationalities. But Islam is a religion, and an explicitly political one - unlike the birthplace of your grandfather it's not something you leave behind in the old country. Indeed, for its adherents in the West, it becomes their principal expression - a Pan-Islamic identity that transcends borders.
Instead of a melting pot, there's conversion: A Scot can marry a Greek or a Botswanan, but when a Scot marries a Yemeni it's because the former has become a Muslim. In defiance of normal immigration patterns, the host country winds up assimilating with Islam: French municipal swimming baths introduce non-mixed bathing sessions; a Canadian Government report recommends the legalisation of polygamy; Seville removes King Ferdinand III as patron of the annual fiesta because he played too, um, prominent a role in taking back Spain from the Moors.
When the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet is also the one most resistant to the pieties of the social-democratic state that's a profound challenge. Yes, yes, I know Islam is very varied, and Riyadh has a vibrant gay scene, and the Khartoum Feminist Publishing Collective now has so many members they've rented lavish new offices above the clitorectomy clinic. I don't claim to have all the answers, except when I'm being interviewed live on TV. But that's better than claiming, as most of Vale's disparagers do, that there aren't even any questions.
Where she goes wrong is in consigning the Lucky Country to the same trash can of history as Old Europe. For Australia, this is not hail and farewell - or, as the Romans put it, ave atque (Danna) vale. Japan is unicultural: a native population ageing and dying. Europe is bicultural: a fading elderly population yielding to a young surging Islam.
But Australia, like the US, is genuinely multicultural, at least in the sense that its immigration is not from a single overwhelming source. The remorseless transformation of Eutopia into Eurabia is already prompting the Dutch to abandon their country in record numbers, for Canada and New Zealand.
In the years ahead, North America and Australia will have the pick of European talent and a chance to learn the lessons of its self-extinction, as they apply to abortion and much else.
In the '70s and '80, Muslims had children - those self-detonating Islamists in London and Gaza and Bali are a literal baby boom - while westerners took all those silly books about overpopulation seriously. A people that won't multiply can't go forth or go anywhere. Those who do will shape the world we live in.
Mark Steyn, a columnist with the Telegraph Group, is a regular contributor to The Australian's Opinion page.
Steyn, unlike Cheney, is once again on target.
Sorry, but I disagree with the first argument he makes. I am not here, nor are my children, to support social programs. The reason abortion is bad is not because Social Security is imperiled by it. It is bad because it is an abomination. As is, to a lesser extent, Social Security and other aspects of Socialism.
If we allow ourselves to be dragged down into the gutter of liberal arguments about who needs to do what to make sure we have enough appropriated cash to hand out to the winners in the looting war we have surrendered the high ground in this battle for no good reason.
Poorly argued by Stein.
ping
That's probably the most likely outcome, but we don't know for sure. When children become rare they may find that society caters to them - universities are easier to get into, employers pay them more, parents get heavy subsidies for creating them, etc. (Admittedly in Europe there are fewer jobs to begin with so this employer effect may not exist there the way it might in Japan or Australia.) Then people seek to have more of them. It's possible that the whole demographic decline will be homeostatic. But we just don't know because this is all uncharted territory.
The thing that most interests me about it is the imbalance among young men, who are always the foot soldiers of violent social change. When I saw the video linked here of les jeunes arabes appearing to rampage through Antwerp after a demonstration against the cartoons what I thought was that there sure were a lot of them and the Belgians seemed pretty helpless in their midst.
Somehow you missed something here. While Steyn does make those points, his MAIN point is that Western nations are dying a very slow death by not procreating the way they used to.
This is a serious matter when you stop to consider that a particular segment of the planet (Islamic societies) are breeding faster than the preverbial rabbits, and that once they break out of their native sh*tholes (via immigration), they will effectively destroy Western culture (you know, the thing that allows you to sit there and scream that you and your children are not slaves of the state-sponsored welfare state, without the threat of a fatwa and a beheading in your future).
The West is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam, and on one, vital front, we're already losing.
I don't diagree with you that abortion is an abomination, but abortion was not the entire point of the piece.
Can't make the acts of the filthy, death cult seem noble no matter how hard the mindless followers try.
I agree with your assessment of why abortion is bad, but Steyn didn't address the morality of it, he addressed the effects of it on populations, which was the main purpose of his article. I feel his argument was good.
Actually, I'm more of the mind that it's been women who are usually in the vanguard of social change (at least in the Western world). It's just unfortunate that the most recent historical social change put forward by women is feminism, which is probably the most responsible factor in the declining birth rate.
Perhaps if more women realized it is a failed ideology we could get back to the good ol' basics of the birds and bees.
Steyn wrote a piece not too long ago lamenting the coming death of Europe because of low birth rates, and how Europe would soon be Islamic...but then he NEVER mentioned an OBVIOUS solution ...ending Muslim immigration to the Europe/West.
At the end of the day, Steyn is just another pro 3rd world immigration (legal or not) Multiculturalist.
Interesting pattern here. One of the big reasons the Arabs did so well and advanced so rapidly in the 7th and 8th centuries is because many of the kingdoms they were up against had exhausted themselves in protracted wars and had become decrepit and were further enfeebled by misrule. The Arab invaders were welcomed as liberators in many places and the Christian churchs, which had allied themselves with the ruling elites, had so discredited themselves that it was easy for many to convert to Islam.
Arab rule lasted for about three centuries by which time it too had become sclerotic and decrepit and fell rather easily to the Seljuk Turks. In both instances the conquerors brought little to the cultures they overran but instead adopted the technologies and benefits that suited their desires and let the rest wither. The middle east was a technological and cultural powerhouse in ancient times and the Arab and Turkish conquerors benefitted tremendously from the peoples they now ruled. But time caught up with them and what was once the center of innovation and culture has slowly descended into irrelevance. If it wasn't for oil who would care about the middle east today?
Now the same fanatic momentum that carried Islam through the middle east is erupting in the heart of Europe. The Europeans staved this off for centuries at the cost of much blood and sacrifice but their descendants have not just given in to the Islamic jihad but actually welcomed it into their nations. Lacking the military means to overrun the continent they will simply breed themselves into dominance. And once again they will parasitically take to themselves whatever they value for its convenience and comfort and abandon or suppress all the rest. And it is this that is the real loss for all of us. The innovation and creativity that have made Europe the seat of technological, philosophical and artistic advance for the past five centuries will be overwhelmed by the fatalistic inertia of Islam. The template has been in place for 1300 years. Just look at the middle east today to see what Europe will be by the end of this century.
There is of course the possibility that the people in some European nations will wake up to the threat. If this happens it could well be that it will be in response to the exhortations of a leader or leaders who promise to deal with the threat. This is another pattern we have seen before. I'm not sure which will be worst: the gradual Islamization of the continent or a violent reaction against this resulting in widespread devastation. Right now I see no real alternative to either of these scenarios.
He could mention it, but would anyone actually listen to him? Answer: No.
The fact is that immigration can NEVER be stopped. In many cases, Immigration is good for society (I would tend to think so, after all, my ancestors came here from Sicily at the turn of the last century and I'm glad they did. Ever been to Sicily? Uggh!).
The reasons why immigration (European immigration, specifically) will never be stopped is that a) you tell the Germans they can't have six weeks of vacation, retire at 50 AND enjoy government-paid-for breast enhancement and see how far you get, and b) even if you sealed Europe hermetically, the fact that you've kept every Arab out does not automatically guarentee that Danes, Finns, Begians, and Frogs will begin breeding again.
The issue is not so much immigration as it is culture. That is the entire point of this piece; the cultural dangers inherant in spiralling birth rates.
He is not for stopping it in the first place, so it wouldn't be necessary for him to mention it.
Although ending Muslim immigration to Europe may not increase the birth rate (who know, it may) at least Europe won't be ruled by people with a completely backward ideology they force upon everyone else.
Third World immigration CAN be stopped, if we have the WILL.
It's ruining our culture and identity.
Europe is dying. Abortion is a big part of the reason.
If you abort a million Europeans and replace them with a million muslims, and you continue to do this every year, you will have a cultural shift that is radical and permanent.
We also abort a million per year, and replace them with a million immigrants. Our good fortune is that muslims make up only a portion of that million; a high percentage are latin americans and at least nominally (and often genuinely) christian. The balance come from almost every country on the globe. These two factors have helped to buffer the cultural shift; while the sudden mexicanization of your town is disconcerting to some (and invisible if you live in the always mexicanized southwest) it can't compare to what the Euros are going through right now, as they awaken to an Islamic Belgium.
Therein lies the reason for alarm.
The most disturbing thing is when Americans convert to islam and side with the terrorists. (John Walker Lindh is not unique)
When we reject our country's spiritual roots, we can expect things to get very ugly.
Spoken like a fellow historian!
The turth about Islam is that it is not a religion, as such. Instead, it is a system of complete and ctotal control of it's adherant's lives in the most minute detail that would have made the KGB green with envy. It mixes tribal superstition and desert culture, gives it a holy veneer and then sends it's legions out, radiating in every direction to erode and undermine everything it comes into contact with.
Mohammed, in his day, was a better-motivated version of Norm, the friendly lush at the end of the bar in Cheers, who used to always wonder "Wouldn't it be great if?". Instead of lacking the ambition and energy of Norm, Mohammed had it in spades and put it to use.
I think the appeal of Islam to many has less to do with it's "holier" aspects, and more to do with the exquisitely detailed set of double standards it's allows it's followers to play by. For every verse of the Koran that extolls mercy, justice, piety, and all the better virtues of mankind, you can find another that excuses rape, murder, pillage, sarciledge, theft, etc. Once you find the excuse to call someone "infeidel" you have provided yourself with a convenient excuse to engage in the baser aspects of human nature, guilt free, as a religious duty.
THAT's the danger Islam represents to Western Culture.
Thought provoking and depressing.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Short of shooting people at the borders, I rather fail to see how one would stop immigration.
On the one hand, while our Federal government actually DEBATES as to WHETHER immigration law should be enforced rigorously, it also goes and passes H-1B legislation further increasing the numbers of visas issued.
Now, is that because Mexicans crossing the desert into Arizona are "bad" immigrants because they're not essential to the economy, and Indian engineers from Bombay arriving on a internation flight at LAX are good for the economy?
Take the question one step further: why is that American kids aren't studying engineering?
The issue is NOT immigration. Or even who the imimigrants are. It is CULTURE.
The United States has always been quite good at mixing people from various backgrounds into a common culture that advances individual freedom. Islam is to about freedom, it is about repression and the baser instincts of human nature.
In order to protect and advance that culture, it is necessary to recognize that if we're outbred, we lose. It is vital to note that when we bend over backwards to accomodate an inimical culture within our own, we lose.
Your missing the forest for the trees.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.