# Demography and the future of the West



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2006)

Mark Steyn has a long article which spells out one possible future for the nations of the West. A short exerpt to start:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760



> THE CENTURY AHEAD
> 
> It's the Demography, Stupid
> The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.
> ...



Read the rest


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jan 2006)

Some other poignant quotes from that article:

"One way "societies choose to fail or succeed" is by choosing what to worry about. The Western world has delivered more wealth and more comfort to more of its citizens than any other civilization in history, and in return we've developed a great cult of worrying."

"The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, 'Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.'" 

" When it comes to forecasting the future, the birthrate is the nearest thing to hard numbers. If only a million babies are born in 2006, it's hard to have two million adults enter the workforce in 2026 (or 2033, or 2037, or whenever they get around to finishing their Anger Management and Queer Studies degrees). And the hard data on babies around the Western world is that they're running out a lot faster than the oil is. "Replacement" fertility rate--i.e., the number you need for merely a stable population, not getting any bigger, not getting any smaller--is 2.1 babies per woman. Some countries are well above that: the global fertility leader, Somalia, is 6.91, Niger 6.83, Afghanistan 6.78, Yemen 6.75. Notice what those nations have in common?"

"So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week. 
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world. "

"A decade and a half after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the "what do you leave behind?" question is more urgent than most of us expected. "The West," as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying. "

So it looks like the way to save our society is to have more babies (how Bloc of an idea).  I'm all for tryin' > but how do we make it affordable?


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jan 2006)

just get rid of all those silly anti-child-labour laws.  Put the little buggers to work as soon as they hit 5.  Not only will this provide for their own upkeep, but the reduction in costs to companies will allow us to compete on the global marketplace without needing to subsidize our industries!   ;D


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

> For example, one day in 2004, a couple of Canadians returned home, to Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto. They were the son and widow of a fellow called Ahmed Said Khadr, who back on the Pakistani-Afghan frontier was known as "al-Kanadi." Why? Because he was the highest-ranking Canadian in al Qaeda--plenty of other Canucks in al Qaeda, but he was the Numero Uno. In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror. Granted they're on the wrong side (if you'll forgive my being judgmental) but no one can argue that they aren't in the thick of things. One of Mr. Khadr's sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a U.S. Special Forces medic. Another was captured and held at Guantanamo. A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pa Khadr himself died in an al Qaeda shootout with Pakistani forces in early 2004. And they say we Canadians aren't doing our bit in this war!



It's good to see that someone besides me sees a problem with the Khadr's fighting the war on terrorism from the other side!


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

...and allow polygamy.  If I can convince wife #1 that #2 and #3 are for the good of Western civilization, then why should the state stop me.... :blotto:


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

> A third blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul.



Stein should do his research - that guy is alive and well and being extradited to the United States....


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and allow polygamy.  If I can convince wife #1 that #2 and #3 are for the good of Western civilization, then why should the state stop me.... :blotto:



There is'nt any reason for it not to be allowed; gays can "marry", common law spouses have the same rights as real spouses, is there really a good reason to continue outlawing polygamy?

Arguing "taste" or "morals" is out - the gays proved that, so the only thing holding us back is the law!

I bet that there will be a constitutional challenge to include polygamous marriage within the legal definition within my lifetime, especially given the high rates of immigration from muslim countries - before you laugh - remember 40 years ago, the thought of gay men kissing each other on the National after their "marriage" would have been a sick joke, now it is law!

I can't wait for my 3 other wives - no more houswork for me!  >


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Jan 2006)

Go move to the East Kootneys, recent Kimberley Advister article complaining about wife numbers 2 and 3 from the sects just accross the boarder taking up space at battered womens shelter in Cranbrook. Local MP said "this requires serious study on a provinical/state/national level". Reminiscent of the underground railroad. Three wives and all the extra nagging, ones enough, no wait I got rid of her.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

I think that is a problem with polygamy - it tends to feature young girls farmed off to relationships that they don't really concent to.  But then again, we have certain sub-cultures in Canada doing this all the time with arranged monogamous marriages, so maybe it isn't polygamy itself that is the problem.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jan 2006)

Well, we can have these girls towing kids around Jane and Finch looking for the fathers of the children, or have four or five of them married to one oil worker in Fort Mac, with the kids getting looked after, or else the wives feel 'the hand' at the end of the day.  What is your bet for 2056?

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> What is your bet for 2056?



That Afghan hillmen will be chuckling at our piles of dust....


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Well, we can have these girls towing kids around Jane and Finch looking for the fathers of the children, or have four or five of them married to one oil worker in Fort Mac, with the kids getting looked after



So true, plus, just think of how prosperous a five income household could be! 

Perhaps this is the future of Canada!

Think, a house full of Cpls x5....52,000/yr = 260,000/yr 

And saying I grace one of my wives with a child every year, until I'm 65 (keeping in mind that the wife stock will have to be rotated to ensure continued fertility)

I could do the patriotic duty of 25 or 30 conventional nuclear families - although it would be a life of pious service to Canada!  

Do you guys think my present wife will agree with my patriotic polygamy?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Do you guys think my present wife will agree with my patriotic polygamy?



...and there in lies the rub.  Female reproductive strategy favouring a single mate is hard to fight against, no matter what the law says.... :warstory:


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and there in lies the rub.  Female reproductive strategy favouring a single mate is hard to fight against, no matter what the law says.... :warstory:



Naw, that's just cultural indoctrination.  If you look at our closest genetic cousins in the animal kingdom, there's very little of the pairing-off that occurs in human society.  We just need to convince our women-folk to be more open-minded


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

"C'mon hun; the Gorillas and Chimpanzees do it....."


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> And the strange tangent award of the year goes too....
> 
> How did we go from the Khadrs to polygamy to Infanteer and GO planning to repopulate Canada?



The sheer beauty and creativity of Mark Steyn's writing, of course... ;D


----------



## GO!!! (4 Jan 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> And the strange tangent award of the year goes too....
> 
> How did we go from the Khadrs to polygamy to Infanteer and GO planning to repopulate Canada?



This is a thread about demographics no?

I plan to be a sire of the level of promiscuity of Genghis Khan - with my oats sown far and wide, as is my patriotic duty!

Besides, "Scottish Canadians" are what made this country great - how could we be wrong with more of us? Have you ever heard of "Scottish Gangsters" or the "Scottish Triads"? Of course not!


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jan 2006)

Whatever, you fail to understand that it is the blood of the Norse that drives Canada forward!!!   :dontpanic:


----------



## mover1 (5 Jan 2006)

HEll I am polygamous right now, 


Just don't tell my wife ;D


----------



## Dog (5 Jan 2006)

While I do think that the article is slightly alarmist, the population issue IS a conundrum that we are unlikely to solve... go down to your local mall and you can see all that our society aspires to... there are few babies; merely smaller cell-phones... one of the real problems with the population issue is that you can't even discuss it without someone thinking it's a complete joke.

I think another quote worth looking at is:

"The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment and other Canucks have been participating in Afghanistan, on one side of the conflict, and the Khadr family had been over there participating on the other side. Nonetheless, the prime minister of Canada thought Boy Khadr's claims on the public health system was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his own deep personal commitment to "diversity." Asked about the Khadrs' return to Toronto, he said, "I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree."

That's the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: You can choose which side of the war you want to fight on. When the draft card arrives, just tick "home team" or "enemy," according to taste. The Canadian prime minister is a typical late-stage Western politician: *He could have said, well, these are contemptible people and I know many of us are disgusted at the idea of our tax dollars being used to provide health care for a man whose Canadian citizenship is no more than a flag of convenience, but unfortunately that's the law and, while we can try to tighten it, it looks like this lowlife's got away with it.* Instead, his reflex instinct was to proclaim this as a wholehearted demonstration of the virtues of the multicultural state. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian prime minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him."


----------



## TCBF (5 Jan 2006)

Be typical if the Kadrs came back and got better medical treatment for their combat wounds than Canadian soldiers did who were wounded in Afghanistan..

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Whatever, you fail to understand that it is the blood of the Norse that drives Canada forward!!!   :dontpanic:



True, but as a fine and refreshing beverage for Highland conquerors.  >


----------



## TCBF (5 Jan 2006)

This isn't another one of those threads that will degenerate into a booster club for sheep shagging, skirted, gap toothed, semi-literate, needle-tracked, socialist-wildcat-strike-organizing , foul mouthed, unintelligible gits, is it?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jan 2006)

Of course not, leader-of-those-who-require-axle-grease-to-squeeze-into-the-turrets-of-their-rolling-pillboxes-whilst-swilling-helmetfuls-of-gravy!

GIAB - Go Strats!

 ;D


----------



## TCBF (6 Jan 2006)

Hard for me to type something about me being outraged while I had a mouthfull of the "Turtles" I bought my wife for Christmas!



Mmmmmnnnnn.....   Turtles.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2006)

(Trying to salvage the thread)

Here is an article about Germany, where the Nanny State discourages job creation and business in general. In response, the Germans are fleeing from Germany(!). If we get a fair share of them, the Norse and Scots may have to deal with the Goths again....

http://freewillblog.com/



> *All About Germany*
> 
> It's unbelievable that a country that can come up with anything as hot as those Oktoberfest dirndls is such a bad place to live, but it seems that liberal policy created a nice place to flee.
> 
> ...



Many Canadians feel the same way as well....


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jan 2006)

Where would a bunch of WASPS relocate to?  Everything in the world is our fault, so who would have us.  No, we are stuck here to wallow in our shame of Western success.


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Jan 2006)

> In fact, one could argue that the Khadr family is Canada's principal contribution to the war on terror



 :


----------



## TCBF (11 Jan 2006)

"the Germans are fleeing from Germany(!). If we get a fair share of them, the Norse and Scots may have to deal with the Goths again...."

- Well, if in defeat, the Norse and Scots are bred to a higher teutonic standard, some good may come of it.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Revelations2005 (12 Jan 2006)

So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.

Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.

How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jan 2006)

Revelations2005 said:
			
		

> So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.
> 
> Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.
> 
> How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?



"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my ass"
"Aww, Bullwinkle, that trick never works"

Dude, where are you coming from?
First, if it is Canada and the US, it wouldn't exactly be a civil war would it?
And I will be the first to challenge you to show that the US is trying to make any sort of empire.  All they have been doing is policing the rest of the planet because everyone is content to sit back and watch them and bitch like a bunch of ingrates and do nothing.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Jan 2006)

Revelations2005 said:
			
		

> So if Canada wants to exist in the future of the 21st Century we're going to have to fight for it.
> 
> Even if that means Canada Vs. the US in a North American Civil War.
> 
> How many Cdn Soldiers here are prepared to resist the rise of the American Empire?



Wellll, I'm typing this on a Hewlett Packard Computer, I drove home in a Jeep, worked with a Colt weapon all day, and had Coke and Subway for lunch. The list goes on, but how do you think that we are resisting right now?  We already have so much in common, it is difficult to tell us apart, so drop the militant leftist adbusters-esque drivel, and either ground yourself in reality, or stop posting.

Have a nice day.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2006)

The "Empire meme has been discussed here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23427/post-130339.html#msg130339, and,

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33469.0.html

Quick summary, an Empire extracts tribute and taxes from foreign nations under its control. No American Proconsuls are levying and collecting taxes on the people of the world, ergo, no Empire.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jan 2006)

Obviously, you need to read 1984, right Revelation? :dontpanic:


----------



## TCBF (14 Jan 2006)

"Beware the man of one book."

 ;D

Tom


----------



## squealiox (14 Jan 2006)

maybe a declining population is not such a bad thing anyway:


> Incredible shrinking countries - Declining populations
> 7 January 2006
> The Economist
> 
> ...


----------



## 48Highlander (14 Jan 2006)

Wow, talk about misrepresentation of the facts....

The reason China's birth rate may begin to decline by 2030 I'm sure has a lot to do with the fact that they're actively trying to curb their growth by legislating how many children a family can have.  It also doesn't change the fact that they make up more than 1/6th of the world's population.  And then there's the birth rate in Africa.  The only thing that's stopping them from having a population explosion is the high mortality rates/low life expectancy.  And let's not forget about India, which currently has almost as large a population as China, and about twice their birth rate.  Right now the global population sits at just over 6 billion; 40 years from now it's expected to be anywhere between 8 and 10 billion.


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Jan 2006)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Wow, talk about misrepresentation of the facts....
> 
> The reason China's birth rate may begin to decline by 2030 I'm sure has a lot to do with the fact that they're actively trying to curb their growth by legislating how many children a family can have.  It also doesn't change the fact that they make up more than 1/6th of the world's population.  And then there's the birth rate in Africa.  The only thing that's stopping them from having a population explosion is the high mortality rates/low life expectancy.  And let's not forget about India, which currently has almost as large a population as China, and about twice their birth rate.  Right now the global population sits at just over 6 billion; 40 years from now it's expected to be anywhere between 8 and 10 billion.



Indeed, and the carrying capacity of the Earth is estimated at 10-13 billion, if I recall correctly. Things are going to get mighty uncomfortable in the years to come if people keep popping out kids the way they have been. While I can't say I like all the repercussions of China's reproductive policy, I think it's a good thing they recognized the problem and have taken steps to remedy it (however effective they may or may not be). I'd like to see India do the same, but given the religiousity of the populous and its democratic government, I doubt it will happen.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2006)

The population = GDP argument is wrong, and the article alluded to this fact. 



> Productivity growth may keep up growth in GDP per person: as labour becomes scarcer, and pressure to introduce new technologies to boost workers' efficiency increases, so the productivity of labour may rise faster.


 Some historians believe this was the main factor for the end of the "dark ages" in Europe; 1/3 of the population had dies from the Black Plague, so the bonds of old social order HAD to be cast off, and innovation became necessary and rewarded.

A small nation may have a high GDP (as well as a high GDP/person) if the people are very productive. In history, this generally occurs when people are unfettered. Up until the end of the British lease, Hong Kong had a fantastic GDP and GDP/person, and the situation is true even today in Tiawan. 

The bulk of the population in Hong Kong and Tiawan are Chinese, speak Chinese languages and, in general share most of the same cultural values as their brethren on the mainland. Because they live on islands, they have a more restricted access to resources than mainlanders, and have smaller populations, but until the "Four Modernizations" were launched, the mainlanders lived in relative poverty and squalor.

Africa's high birth rates will avail them nothing unless and until their social organizations and structures get in gear, and the high birth rates of the Arab and Persian Middle East are only a source of trouble for their own societies, since their economies are in no way able to provide jobs and economic opportunities for the masses of young people (even discounting the growing number of young women, who are traditionally excluded from economic and political participation anyway). The most reliable indicator of GDP is actually energy use per person; people who have more energy at their disposal are able to do more of anything.

I think the more important aspect of Steyn's argument is the loss of confidence and will overall in our civilization, declining birth rates may well be a symptom rather than a cause. Lurid worries about being overrun by hordes of angry young Arabs or Africans kind of overlooks the fact that only the West has the transportation and logistical ability to move masses of people (those illegal immigrants arn't coming over on African or Arab ships and airplanes now, are they?)


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2006)

Once again, the structural weakness of Europe will hobble them in the future, economically, politically, diplomatically and so on. Canada's political class adheres to many of the "European" nostrums, so this is instructive as a possible look at our future as well:



> *The Decline and Fall of Europe*
> Talk to top-level scientists and educators about the future of scientific research and they will rarely even mention Europe.
> 
> By Fareed Zakaria
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2006)

Although you can't really be enthused about having too much of a population "boom", the facts of a population "bust" are equally appalling. It isn't only "old Europe" which is in demographic trouble although there has been the most visibility), Russia is in a spiral, and even the far East could be facing a demographic melt down by mid century, with Japan leading the way, and China, who's demographics are wildly skewed by the "one child per family" policy meeting the cultural preference for male children, following along soon after.

Although there are some schools of thought which equate overall population growth with GDP growth, I think this overlooks the fact that economic growth is determined by cultural factors, such as the free exchange of goods, ideas and capital. Societies where these factors are hindered (i.e. fundamentalist Islamic nations, communist or socialist economies, autocracies or anarchistic failed states) will do poorly regardless of population. The vast explosion of people in the Middle east or Africa has not translated into increased wealth (indeed, GDP per capita is declining as static GDP is divided among more and more people). My prediction is that India will be the economic superpower in mid century, given the *relative* ease which goods, ideas and capital can move (compared to their peer group nations), and perhaps South America will be moving briskly along behind. 

Mark Steyn points out that young Europeans will not be sitting about waiting to be absorbed into Islam or working their ***es off to support a bloated geriatric welfare state, they will be heading to the multi-cultural nations of the West, preferentially the United States and Australia. We might get a shot in the arm if we can get our act together and become attractive to this new pioneer class; I doubt they want to go from Old Europe to "Neo Old Europe" if there is a choice.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18159605%255E7583,00.html


----------

