It's the Demography, Stupid

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The underlying assumption behind this whole question (stripping out fear and jealousy) is Darwinian in nature.

I agree that the author comes at the issue with some very strong criticism, which might be expected since the object of his analysis is in many ways at odds with his political world view. Putting aside the Muslim takeover of the west aspect, I am equally interested in the "what happens when a civilization/society gets old" aspect to this article (as I never read/studied on this topic).
Where I work, it typically takes about 2 years to get a new hire through the pipe line until he is no longer a NUB. We got people retiring faster than getting qualified workers. End result, to get the same job done, more time at work, less time with family, less time fencing. Fortunately relief is on the way, although still will be a few months. Now how does this work onthe larger scale, with old people retiring and less new workers to replace them?

Originally Posted by jBirch

In human terms, for the same resource expenditure you either have 3 kids with grade 2 education or 1 with a college degree. This is the difference in natural selection strategy between first world and third world nations.
James.

I like the analogy, however, shouldn't the first world nation also have three kids ( or at least 2), one with a college degree, and the other(s) with at least high school (in order to sustain itself)?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

With the simple fact that insurgencies are not revolutions. They are the precursor, sure, to revolutions but certainly not the same thing.

James.

Bit like saying that it isn't falling off a cliff that kills you but rather the landing, isn't it?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by D.O.A.R.

Now how does this work onthe larger scale, with old people retiring and less new workers to replace them?

..snip..

I like the analogy, however, shouldn't the first world nation also have three kids ( or at least 2), one with a college degree, and the other(s) with at least high school (in order to sustain itself)?

Great question.

The assumption is that populations must increase for them to have long term viability. If a population reduces then it is losing the natural selection war and doomed to extinction. The problem I have with this is that population reduction (in certain amounts) leaves the remaining population better able to cope with changing circumstances. Think about the looming problem of over-population in places like India and China.

There is a further assumption, and that is that resource consumption stays static and competition is amongst equals. If resource consumption increases, then populations that are decreasing are also increasing the amount of available resources per population member. My kids have better chances to acquire resources and dominate than my wife and I do, so the theory goes.

The sum total of this argument is whether or not the incremental improvement in the children offset the loss of the parents.

Further, the demographic data that indicates this (birth rates vs. death rates) are amongst all citizens. Which includes native Muslims. In the European countries where death is greater then birth the author interprets this to mean that the indigenous population is dying and being replaced by immigrants from fundamentalist Islam. It is the conjecture from death > birth = collapse of civilisation that I think is unfounded.

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Bit like saying that it isn't falling off a cliff that kills you but rather the landing, isn't it?

If P(Revolution) given P(Insurrection)->1, then you'd be right.

Sadly, that's not the case. Off to the slippery slope fallacy rehabilitation clinic you go Inq!

James.

[D.O.A.R.]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The assumption is that populations must increase for them to have long term viability. If a population reduces then it is losing the natural selection war and doomed to extinction. The problem I have with this is that population reduction (in certain amounts) leaves the remaining population better able to cope with changing circumstances. Think about the looming problem of over-population in places like India and China.

I agree that a population decrease is not necessarily a bad thing, if key factors shift accordingly with the trend in population.
If we could, shift from the long term to short adjustments that a society needs to make in order to ride out adjustments in its population, specifically the segment of population paying the bills. The options I see are 1) cut costs (screw the old), 2) raise taxes (screw the middle), or 3) bring in replacement workers (screw??).

Originally Posted by jBirch

The sum total of this argument is whether or not the incremental improvement in the children offset the loss of the parents.

Good thought, with many examples to support it, on a certain scale. I'll need to chew on this for a bit and think how it transfers to a larger scale.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

If P(Revolution) given P(Insurrection)->1, then you'd be right.

.

You'll have to translate that from Mathish to English before I understand it.

[ReverseLunge]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You'll have to translate that from Mathish to English before I understand it.

I'm sorry about that Inq. It's my fault.

[pigeonmeister]

Europeans are making less babies. Muslims are making more. Europeans need workers to keep their systems up and running. Muslims (by large) seem to answer the call.

It is not Muslim immigrants that are just answering the call. With EU enlargement and freedom of movement, the people who are anwering the call are increasingly poorer Eastern and Baltic Europeans.

I think the relationship between resources and population is a bit overplayed too. The key reason behind most of the famines in the world are unpleasant and incompetent dictators, not lack of resources. This process will only accelerate.

Population control advocates also argue that growth will strip the world of non-renewable resources like oil and minerals, thereby throwing economies into disarray. But, the Population Division report says, "During recent decades new reserves have been discovered, producing the seeming paradox that even though consumption of many minerals has risen, so has the estimated amount of the resource as yet untapped."

I find James's arguments for population decline interesting
"Think about the looming problem of over-population in places like India and China."

It is often claimed that poverty in China is the result of "overpopulation." But Taiwan, with a population density five times as great as mainland China's, produces many times as much per capita. The Republic of Korea, with a population density 3.6 times as great as China's, has a per capita output almost 16 times as great. The Malaysian government abandoned population control in 1984, ushering in remarkable economic growth under free market reforms, while Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria and other countries complained at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo that though they had reduced their population growth, they still had deteriorating economies

The way I see it is that there are compelling arguments for both population growth and decline to both have positive effects. Prof Clarke (who developed the concept of Gross National Product) used detailed statistical comparisons within and between developing nations to demonstrate a positive relationship between rate of population growth and rate of product growth per head.

So I reckon that most of this is about paranoia and Islamophobia. The author writes off Europe as an inevitable Muslim state because they are being outbred. Yet he doesn't perceive a similar 'threat' to America from Hispanics despite their fertility advantages. The fertility rate for non-hispanic whites is just over 1.8, for blacks 2.1. For Latinos, it is nearly 3.0—higher than in many developing countries. Even now, in the parts of America with the highest immigration, such as Los Angeles and Houston, Latinos account for half of all children under 14. Why is the author so obsessed with Muslim immigration?

A London Times article of August 07, 2002, titled "Britain is losing Britain":The fear is that third world migration is quadrupling the rate of Britain's population growth and creating a new city of immigrants the size of Cambridge every six months. This, The Times says, is transforming Britain into "a foreign land, against the wishes of the majority of the population, damaging quality of life and social cohesion, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion," and burdening the health service to the breaking point." The Times editor writes, "silence is no longer an option." Britain is literally disappearing. In many British cities "you can wander around for hours without seeing a white face, one monoculture having replaced another."

The fact is that yes the immigrant population is rising, it always will if our economy grows and Europeans refuse to do jobs that immigrants will. Will some cities eventually have more Muslims than Christians- probably. Will this mean that Britain will dissapear? Er...no. Why?

1.Just because a community becomes larger doesn't make it more dominant. The relationship between power and population is not that simple. After all a few thousand Britons ruled India for 100 years.

2. Because you can go to huge swayths of Britain and not see a brown face. It is the urban landscape that is changing. It is false to automatically assume that this cause a significant change in the identity of Britain.

3. Because 'British' identity is not a fixed to state of mind. It is like energy- it cannot be destroyed it can only be transeferred. It used to be that of a Christian nation, it used to be that of imperial supermacy, before that it meant little else but hating the French.

4.It doesn't follow that because there are a hundred times more Muslims living in Britain now (compared to 50 years ago) then there will be another a hundred times more in another 1oo years.

5. Because European Islam is in a transitional period- of which the outcome cannot be predicted (much less an outcome of any Eurabia) The religiosity of the fundamentalists is individual and generational; this is a rebellion against the religion of their own parents. Many young Muslim girls of the second generation in Europe wear the veil not at the insistence of their parents, but rather to affirm their individuality: furthermore, they are not shy of taking up feminist slogans ("my body is my business"). These 2nd generation Muslims are a product of flawed multicultural policies from the 1970's on, with better policies the next generation's attitudes cannot be predicted.

6. Because the idea that Muslim culture is on a collision course with Western is misguided. Why are Islamic fundamentalists more implicated in political violence than Christians? The explanation is not to be sought in the Koran. Islamic radicalism is most commonly found in sites of social exclusion and political tension. Today, radical groups recruit where the extreme Left once drew its support; rebellion against the established order takes place in the name of Islam. There are a number of reasons for this: the extreme Left's adoption of middle class values, the presence of Muslim populations in previously working class areas and the fact that "anti-imperialism" is focused on Muslim areas of the world.

Another problem is that European populations are falling but the American population is growing. Europe has traditionaly used more public money to fund social programmes. Ageing and shrinking governments/societies find that more and more public money is eaten up by this. Whilst in America more public money (which increases with more tax payers) is spent on defense

"If Europeans are unwilling to spend what is needed to be full military partners of America now, when 65-year-olds amount to 30% of the working-age population, they will be even less likely to do more in 2050, when the proportion of old people will have doubled. In short, the long-term logic of demography seems likely to entrench America's power and to widen existing transatlantic rifts"
Economist http://economist.com/printedition/di...ory_ID=1291056

European 'identity' has, since the crusades, made the distinction between 'Christendom' and the rest of the world. It was the first instance of European unity against the perceived threat to civilisation and religion that Islam represented. 'Peace' was defined by the removal of Muslims from Christendom. It is easy to see how identity has evolved in opposition and in fear of Islam. This attitude might be under threat- but If you think that British identity will be lost then you are mad. The same people said that the EU would lead to a 'Euroland' in which all national identities are lost. The same people say that American cultural imperialism would have us all emitting 'U' from the word 'colour' and changing our 's' to 'z'.

Is it not the case that many states resisted federalism because (amongst other issues) it represented an alien indentity? Texas chief amongst them, but a few generations later Texans are the most vocal in asserting their patriotism as well as their texan idendity. Maybe things have to get worse before they get better.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You'll have to translate that from Mathish to English before I understand it.

Sorry, given your penchant for finding the weakness in an argument, I thought I'd pre-empt you. *grin*

What I was saying was that an insurrection does not always lead to a full blown rebellion.

The difference between the two is that an insurrection is supported, covertly, by a small segment of the populace and generally by an external entity. If the segment of the populace that supports the insurgency grows to the point that it is the majority opinion in a defined political group and becomes overt, then the insurgency turns into a rebellion. The scale of the rebellion is determined by the size of the political group (a village, a town, a city, a region, a territory, a country). If the rebellion grows to the point that it threatens the state and the state army is employed to counter it, it turns into a civil war.

That's the slippery slope fallacy that I was talking about: an insurrection does not lead to a rebellion the same way that falling off a cliff leads to a sudden stop.

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Sorry, given your penchant for finding the weakness in an argument, I thought I'd pre-empt you.

Impertinence!

What I was saying was that an insurrection does not always lead to a full blown rebellion.

No, but mighty oaks from little acorns grow. Not every acorn becomes a tree, but we do not say that acorns never make forests. No more can we split hairs so fine as to say that insurgencies never succeed, only revolutions. The one is merely the immature state of the other. That many of the former are strangled in the cradle means nothing. If I may mix my metaphors quite outrageously.

The difference between the two is that an insurrection is supported, covertly, by a small segment of the populace and generally by an external entity.

Insurrection is defined only as

"The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government".

Naughty, trying to redefine it to fit your argument!

If the segment of the populace that supports the insurgency grows to the point that it is the majority opinion in a defined political group and becomes overt, then the insurgency turns into a rebellion.

Rebellion:

"Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government".

The scale of the rebellion is determined by the size of the political group (a village, a town, a city, a region, a territory, a country). If the rebellion grows to the point that it threatens the state and the state army is employed to counter it, it turns into a civil war.

Civil war:

"A war between factions or regions of the same country".

That's the slippery slope fallacy that I was talking about: an insurrection does not lead to a rebellion the same way that falling off a cliff leads to a sudden stop.

There's no fallacy, because you can find one only if you define the various terms you're using in an unorthodox fashion...which is in itself a fallacy ( called amphiboly ).

Insurgencies have, can and do succeed. That they have to get larger to do so does not alter their essentail nature, any more than the fact that Cassius Clay had to grow to manhood before he could become heavyweight boxing champion of the world altered HIS basic nature...

[jBirch]

Quite a beautiful straw man, if I must say. You've implicitly accepted the concept that an insurrection is lower on a continuum (which I've defined using jargon from military lectures), yet continued to assert that all insurrections must become greater on the continuum.

Just because it is cold today, does not mean that it will always be colder tomorrow.

That some insurgencies do "grow up" is indisputable. That all insurgencies must is a fallacy.

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Quite a beautiful straw man, if I must say. You've implicitly accepted the concept that an insurrection is lower on a continuum (which I've defined using jargon from military lectures), yet continued to assert that all insurrections must become greater on the continuum.

No such thing. My only concern is to refute your earlier assertion that insurgencies never succeed, that they are fatally flawed in concept somehow and never achieve their goals. I have never said that ALL insurgencies succeed, or that they MUST grow or spread---only that they CAN.

Just because it is cold today, does not mean that it will always be colder tomorrow.

Nor does it mean that it can never be.

And dude, I know you're in Canada and hence are obsessed with low temperatures, but your frigid metaphors are exerting a chilling effect on the conversation.

That some insurgencies do "grow up" is indisputable. That all insurgencies must is a fallacy.

James.

This was not your initial position. It was "It is, in effect, a losing strategy". And if occasionally an insurgency succeeds, or wins, then clearly that proposition is incorrect. Adding as a correlary that they can only succeed by first becoming something else is a definitional retreat ( fallacy of ).

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

This was not your initial position. It was "It is, in effect, a losing strategy". And if occasionally an insurgency succeeds, or wins, then clearly that proposition is incorrect. Adding as a correlary that they can only succeed by first becoming something else is a definitional retreat ( fallacy of ).

Oh! I see where you are. I thought "falling off a cliff = sudden stop" was to show that all insurgencies must turn into successful revolutions.

They are a losing strategy for the reasons I outlined above. You can't really project force or coerce with an insurgent tactic. It operates through fear and anti-motivation. A powerful military, like the US, for example, can simply do what it pleases. That's the difference in effectiveness. Bush is right in saying that the only way the insurgents can win is if the US loses its nerve and quits. That's what I meant by "losing strategy": you've already lost the military conflict and so you must resort to these sorts of strategems to have any efffect whatsoever.

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

You can't really project force or coerce with an insurgent tactic. It operates through fear and anti-motivation.

I'd say that a lot of peasants past and present, from Vietnam to Cuba to South America, would disagree.

And a lot of Iraqi civilians would disagree right now, I think. They ARE coerced, and they DO have force projected onto them. Occasionally THROUGH them as well...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'd say that a lot of peasants past and present, from Vietnam to Cuba to South America, would disagree.

And a lot of Iraqi civilians would disagree right now, I think. They ARE coerced, and they DO have force projected onto them. Occasionally THROUGH them as well...

On the occupied populace, absolutely: that's the point of a terrorist campaign. But the insurgency isn't much threat to New York, is it? It can't really *DO* anything to America except irritate the hell out of it. That's what I meant by a "losing strategy". There's not much chance that New York is going to convert to Fundamentalist Islam the same way Baghdad became Democratic, is there?

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

But the insurgency isn't much threat to New York, is it? It can't really *DO* anything to America except irritate the hell out of it. .

Neither could Saddam's state army. That's not really the point, is it? Winning a conflict is the determinant of success, not whether you can carry it somewhere else...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Neither could Saddam's state army. That's not really the point, is it? Winning a conflict is the determinant of success, not whether you can carry it somewhere else...

But that is precisely the point. "Win the battle and lose the war" kind of thinking. Full circle even. I trust that I've shown why an Insurgent tactic is of little threat to America as it relates to destroying the American Ideology?

At any rate, this is quite tangential to the point of whether Islam is going to destroy western civilisation. What are your thoughts as they relate to Islam destroying our culture (starting with Europe)?

James.