Compounding interest and human fertility are comparable, however, in that “it takes money to make money,” and it takes young, healthy women to have children. To put it delicately, for some decades, men in the liberal democracies and other developed countries made many deposits, but too few of them were made in interest-bearing accounts. Those missed opportunities are now lost. Those who have had too few children find themselves with too few young adults to make up the losses. Moreover, I understand that in various countries, such young adults as do exist are likewise reproducing at rates insufficient even to replace themselves. Meanwhile, the neighbors have been busy and variously remain so.

Very likely, some situations may still be saved. Alarmism seems more likely to bring matters around than does the complacency that brought us into our present condition.

Steyn frequently addresses the issue of Ehrlich’s predictions, and makes this very simple point: unlike Ehrlich, he is not extrapolating. His arguments are based on the number of babies already born: if you look at the numbers born in 2005, you know roughly how many 25-year-olds there’ll be in 2030 — regardless of anything that might happen to birth-rates in 2010.

He also specifically makes the point that no-one needs a majority to be culturally dominant. Look at Scotland: its politics, though democratic, are completely skewed by the population centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh, saddling the entire nation with a political culture that is somewhat alien to most of its towns. I don’t think I’m suggesting anything absurd if I say that London wields a greater influence over British politics than the mere weight of its population might suggest. And look at crime: when a gang of teenagers stab a man to death for asking them to stop throwing stones at the cars in his street, what is the result: that the law-abiding residents win out over the thugs simply by dint of outnumbering them, or that the majority end up cowed and afraid in their own homes?

In short, what use is it for the infidels to outnumber the Islamists when half of the infidels are geriatric and most of them shy away from violence and the Islamists are all in their mid-twenties and willing to die for the cause of killing infidels?

Look at the Danish cartoons. Not one British paper would publish a single one of them. Yet those who protested against them were not even close to a majority.

My basic objection to him comes from his ongoing incitement against Muslims, and for his supporting the “War” in Iraq.

(I always want to say “War WITH Iraq”, but that isn’t what’s happening, is it? It has, however, conveniently become the “frontline” on the “War on Terror” – which is preposterous of course – you can’t make “War” on a tactic…)

Even today President Bush stated “the reason” for invading Iraq: to “remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

But that’s different from the original “reason”, given back in 2002.

Back then “the reason” was that the U.S. needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had WMDs (which he did NOT have, by the way) – and not just conventional WMD’s, either. Saddam Hussein had a secret nuclear weapons program AND the unmanned drones with which to deliver his nuclear or chemical or biological weapons to the Eastern seaboard of the U.S.

Of course not one word of it was true – the Downing Street memos are quite clear: the Bush administration had nothing concrete with which to invade Iraq, even up to three months prior to doing so – Bush himself, at the last moment, even suggested repainting a 3rd party’s plane with U.N. colors and positioning it so that Saddam would be drawn to shoot at it, finally giving the U.S. a “real” reason to invade.

So, the fact that Mark Steyn supported the invasion of a sovereign country (and not one which supported terrorists, either – Saddam killed Islamic fundamentalists faster and more frequently – by a long shot – than George W. Bush ever even dreamed of doing ) on flimsy – even invented – evidence – which a lot of people were aware WAS flimsy (and invented, if you’d have asked Joe Wilson), by the way, either relegates him to the longer list of “those fooled” by fabricated evidence (“yellow cake from Niger” indeed) or places him on a much more sinister – if shorter – list of those (especially those in the media) who were echoing precisely what the White House wanted them to say in order to justify invading Iraq.

Now if Mark Steyn was simply duped (like a vast majority of Americans) into believing that Saddam was far more dangerous than he actually was (Colin Powell and Condi Rice both stated that Saddam was “contained” and “posed no danger”, pre 9/11.)
that is one thing.

But if Mark Steyn was given secret information, from someone “in-the-know”, about the true nature of the invasion of Iraq: (ala the Project for a New American Century) – Step One of the eventual annexation of the entire Muslim Middle East – regardless of the ramifications of a possible – and probable bloody backlash, against Israel and the West, by Islamicists recruited to al Qaeda-like franchises world wideand yet called for that invasion anyway, then Mark Steyn is a scoundrel – and a devious scoundrel – of the highest order.

So both Muslims born here and Muslims in traditionally Muslim lands sense its weakness and emptyness and turn to Islam (harsh forms of Islam) for meaning.

That may be true at the moment, but as you have already pointed out Paul, these things move in cycles. It is a bit like the current trend of young American kids being more “conservative” and religious than their Baby Boom moms and dads. As we know, Paul, our generation rebelled by supporting Maggie, supporting capitalism and sticking it to the Soviets; the previous generation was more leftwing, and so on. So with young Muslim kids living in Bradford, Birmingham or Leicester, it may be that radical islam is the way to assert oneself, but will this be the case in 20 or 30 years time?

I am not denying the problems you and Steyn talk about, but I think these arguments can cut in two directions. That is why I am a skeptic on the “we are all gonna be taken over” thesis as much as I am a skeptic on other fashionable doom-messages from the left and right.

However, who said that there was?

As for Europe. Immigrants, or rather the children of immigrants, take up the superficial aspects of the culture – such as playing Association Football, or wearing jeans.

But in terms of beliefs the children of immigrants tend to be more “Islamic” than there parents were. In that they tend to take up the interpretations of Islam favoured by the enemies of the West.

This is only natural. For the immigrants Islam was often just part of their local culture, but the children are not really part of the culture of (say) Bangladesh, so for them Islam is an ideology (and they seek after pure forms).

Of course even “back home” in countries like Bangladesh Islam is undergoing a come back and a reformation.

Many Muslim countries are far more Islamic than they were say back in the 1960′s.

The two things are linked.

The West has lost self confidence as a culture.

So both Muslims born here and Muslims in traditionally Muslim lands sense its weakness and emptyness and turn to Islam (harsh forms of Islam) for meaning.

This is what J.P. might call “being a miserable bastard”, however the truth is often horrible.

The first step to changing a situation is to stop denying its existance.

Nor is this entirely confined to Europe.

Even in the United States there are signs of Islamic thinking amongst the Muslim population. For example, the taxi drivers ar Minneapolis airport who refused to carry people who either had booze with them (not people who had been drinking – people who had a bottle unopened) or who had pet dogs – not dirty dogs, but any dog (dogs being unclean in Islam).

This was not one of Steyn’s examples (nor was the recent case where various Islamic relgious officials were not allowed on a aircraft because they expressed support, in Arabic, for terrorism and an Arabic speaker overheard them – they responded by threatening to bring suit against the airline).

However, Steyn does give such examples as American sports teams dropping names like the “Crusaders” (in order to curry favour with Muslims), but the Muslims nameing their sports teams with the Islamic names (Swords of God, Holy War, and so on).

The contrast between the West and Islam is the contrast between a culture full of weakness, decay and self doubt and a culture full of the lust for domination.

Lots of aircraft and tanks do not really matter – if the will is weak and the mind full of self doubt.

I live in Vancouver, western Canada. Muslims in my city are a very small minority. Immigrants from China, India (mainly Sikhs), Phillipines, Korea make up a significant proportion of the total population. I would say that most of the communities are fitting in pretty well socially and economically (although it doesn’t mean there aren’t problems). There is also a relatively large Iranian community, many of whom are probably either Muslim or Bahai. But I practically never see the Iranian women here wearing any headscarves–they are very Western in the way they dress for example. There is also a successful Ismaili community which was profiled in a business magazine ( http://www.bcbusinessmagazine.com/ismailiJuly06.htm ) I also know quite well some Muslims from Lebanon and Turkish part of Cyprus who are also pretty successful and have professional jobs and do not fit the traditional Muslim streotype. There are some traditional Muslims here as well (mainly from Somalia, and probably some from the Middle East), but they seem to be a very small minority in comparison to other immigrant communities. So I don’t think the issue is necessarily that Muslims cannot adapt to western way of life. I think the problem in Europe is that European countries have not been selective enough as to the type of people they’re letting in and they probably allowed too many people who had very poor prospects to fit in to begin with (Canada is not perfect in this regard either but I suspect is doing a better job at least in the region where I live).

I think the reason that there is a population slowdown in Europe (as well as other countries) probably has to do a lot with economics. Having children is expensive and in our society I think it’s almost presented as a burden.

Let me give you an example…. there was a baby boom in Poland during the 80′s and the country had a relatively good growth rate. Through all the economic changes, the unemployment rate is now 15 % ( it was 20% not too long ago). At the same time the fertility rate tanked and is now among the lowest in Europe. Poland is actually pretty conservative country and having family/children is considered quite important. The reason people are having so few children is because there are high expecations but not enough stable empoyment opportunities to “finance” having children. I think this issue mirrors the situation in other places in the former communist countries. However, I think that economics does play a significant role in western Europe too as to whether people choose to have children.

So yes, women in the workforce may be the reason for population growth slowdown in the West, but it’s probably because they have to, since now it’s almost impossible to sustain a family on a single income.

I think the population growth rates are so high in developing countries, including Muslim countries, because of the status of women, lack of education, lack of birth control, pressure from their society / religion, etc. However, having children in developing countries can also be seen as “insurance” for the aging parents. Most of these countries have non-existent or poorly developed support for the elderly. It’s no surpise then to see three-generational homes and extended families. I think this type of approach is brought along with some Muslim immigrants to Europe especially if these immigrants come from poor, rural, and conservative villages from Morroco or Pakistan.

By all means, fellow commenters, let’s be realistic about the dangers out there, but let’s not give the impression that libertarian bloggers are all miserable bastards, either.

Sadly the Royals in Saudi (or some of them anyway – it is a big family) are the moderates – at least in the local context.

If the House of Saud ever gets overturned it is likely to be replaced with real moon bat types.

That is the real reason (rather than Bush family House of Saud links) why the United States supports “our friend Saudi Arabia” – even though (in reality) it is not a friend at all.

It is the old story of supporting the bad for fear of the worse.

Of course people like Mark Steyn reject that policy root-and-branch, but they do not seem very influential right now.

I guess what I find kind of frustrating is the “defeatist” attitutude that Muslim takeover of Europe is inevitable. I also find annoying some of the propaganda that you sometimes read in the newspapers saying that “future belongs to Islam” or that “Islam is the fastest growing religion” or some other BS… well, in Canada apparently Wicca is the fastest growing religion (but then again any religion that starts with small number of follwers can appear as fast growing).

In the example previously I wanted to say that in repressive societies people do not just accept social order, and the repressive character of such regimes, in my opinion, is unsustainable–such regimes are bound for an eventual overthrow/change and I don’t mean by a small minority (as given in the example previously) but by the younger generation who who probably want to lead more normal lives…

In my opinion, Saudi Arabia “lives” on borrowed time. And yes I also think it is the source of much of the problems with radical Islam… To put it simply, if it wasn’t for oil money, they would not have the money to spread religious propaganda, import huge number of workers for jobs Saudis don’t want to do or don’t know how to do, and finance huge their welfare state (which also results in very high fertility rates). Their regime and social order cannot be sustained (population pressure or depletion of oil reserves will force them to change). The less the world and West relies on oil the better…

The point I’m trying to make is that when such regimes as Saudi Arabia or Iran are forced to change, then they can no longer import radical ideology.

I also think that (radical) Islam has taken place of what cults were back in the 60′s or the 70′s– you know about Jonestown? I think there will always be a segment in our society (right now this applies some Muslim youth and some converts) which can be easily swayed to follow radical ideology. I mean there must be some comfort to be given a set of “rules” in how to live your life without the need for questioning, introspection, or generally thinking (now why are there so many Muslim coversions in prisons?). I guess this must be what submission means.

I know I strayed somewhat… I just wanted to give a slightly different perspective. I also wish people were more assertive, and not simply accept what they think is inevitable.

[Editors note: there were so many comments flagged by the moderation system (which is a bot) that yours got pushed on to page two of the comments list that we see and so got missed by the dazed editor... its is up now]