Commentators such as Mark Steyn make great of the idea that Muslims will outbreed native Europeans, the effect of which would be the transformation of Europe as we know it within merely a generation or two. Quoting Steyn replying to a reader:
But just to keep it simple. Let’s say you’ve got a population of a million. 90% are ethnic Europeans, 10% are Muslims (the “official” French figure). Let’s pretend they’re all the same age, rather than dealing with the reality of the fact that in, say, London the vast majority of its one million Muslims are under 25. But let’s imagine these million people are all 20 years old. The 900,000 ethnic Europeans with a fertility rate of 1.4 per couple will have 630,000 children and 441,000 grandchildren – steep population decline. The 100,000 Muslims with a fertility rate of 3.8 will have 190,000 children and 361,000 grandchildren – rapid growth. The “overwhelming majority” and the “tiny minority” will have near equal numbers of grandchildren. And, as I said, that’s without ongoing remorseless immigrating and accelerating export of native talent.
But why argue about the when of it? It might slow down or accelerate, but unless there’s a big profound change the Islamization of Britain is inevitable. Why quibble over the hypothetical date of a statistical majority? Once Islam reaches 20% of the population and becomes the majority in every major English city, Britain will be semi-Muslim in its sociopolitical character. Which is to say: Britain, as we’ve known it, will be dead.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the fertility rates remain the same relative to each other, something which as of late has been shown to simply not be true:
In their study, Westoff and Frejka sift through the available data to estimate the level and trends in childbearing among European Muslims. They show that although Muslim immigrants do have more children than other Europeans, their fertility tends to decline over time, often faster than among non-Muslims.
In Austria, for example, Muslim women had a total fertility rate (an estimate of lifetime births per woman) of 3.1 children per woman in 1981, well above the 1.7 average for the majority Roman Catholic women. By 2001, the rate for Catholics had fallen to 1.3, but the Muslim rate had fallen to 2.3—leaving a difference of just one child per woman between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The gap narrowed even further in the former West Germany, where the authors relied on data by mother’s nationality rather than religion. West Germany recruited a large number of workers from Turkey beginning in the 1960s, giving Germany one of Western Europe’s largest Muslim populations. In 1970, Turkish women living in West Germany had more than two more children than German women. By 1996, the difference between these two groups had fallen to one child.
Recent trends in the Netherlands tell a similar story (see figure). The fertility gap between native-born women and women born in predominantly Muslim Morocco and Turkey narrowed considerably between 1990 and 2005.
Proponents of the demographics argument as stated above should be pressed for an answer to the question why these fertility rates will remain essentially the same for the next 25-50 years, a question which they to my knowledge have not addressed at all but merely assumed to have been answered. Further:
But fertility has been falling in many Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa, which may help explain why younger Muslim women have lower fertility than older women. In Turkey, the TFR dropped from 3.3 in the 1985 to 1990 period to about 2.2 in 2003. Over the same span of years, the TFR fell from 4.5 to 2.5 in Morocco, and from 5.6 to 2.1 in Iran, according to UN estimates.
Muslims who grew up in Europe in immigrant families are also likely to adopt the majority population’s preference for smaller families. All countries in Europe have had low fertility for decades.
This invalidates the demographics argument.
Update: A comment claiming that a difference of 1 in the fertility rates between Muslims and non-Muslims still makes a great difference made me actually make use of my mobile phone calculator. Using the figures for Austrian Catholics and Muslims in Austria, and numbers from the CIA Factbook, I get the following (Catholics are 73.6% of Austria’s total population, Muslims are 4.2% of the total population):
Looking only at Catholics and Muslims, Catholics make up 94.6 % and Muslims 5.4% of the total of these two groups. Starting with 946,000 Catholics and 54,000 Muslims, they will have 614,900 and 62,100 children respectively. At this point Catholics will make up 90.8% and Muslims 9.2% of these two groups taken together. These will in turn have 399,685 and 71,415 children respectively, which will correspond to 84.8% and 15.2% respectively of the total of these two groups. This is a considerable shift in demographics, but far from the certain Islamification that is envisioned. And, the remaining 22.2% of Austria’s population has not been taken into consideration. And, this hypothetical scenario will remain merely hypothetical by the fact that we do not know how the fertility rates will develop for the next 50 years. Claiming otherwise is worse than ignorance.
Hi Guftafs. Thanks for your comment on one of my posts on Mark Steyn. I discovered your comment after having just “wiped” my weblog with the intention of making a fresh start. That’s something I’ve done occasionally since I began blogging, because I’ve never yet “found my voice” as a blogger.
Regarding your comment, Steyn’s aware that total fertility is falling in most parts of the world, including the ones populated mostly by muslims. Nevertheless, in his characteristic way of expressing his view, demography is a game of “last man standing.” Some countries and some peoples within various countries have suffered the misfortune that they decreased their fertility much earlier than the others; moreover, although those others have joined them now in decreasing their total fertility, such lower fertility is reported to be still well above replacement rate and well above the fertility of many European peoples, for example.
The relations between the U.S. and Mexico are a good example. Mexico’s fertility has been falling, while the U.S.’s is estimated to have risen in the last few years. Nevertheless, Mexico’s decrease began later and was slower, and crucially, Mexico’s total fertility is estimated to be around 5, while the U.S.’s is still just 2.05.
In the passages you quote above, a difference in total fertility of just one child is treated as negligible. I think that’s wrong. For example, in the case of Austria, your source reports that Catholics have total fertility of 1.3, which is well below the replacement rate of 2.2, while Muslims are slightly above replacement at 2.3. Total fertility of 1.3 means approximately a 40% decrease in population per year for the Catholics. If the reported rates hold up over time, then it seems Austria has a Muslim future.
As a general caution, I offer that it seems good to avoid hasty or firm conclusions, except in extremis. When you draw a conclusion quickly and firmly, then as best you can, pause and note the emotional condition of your body. Are you angry? I think there’s a close relationship between certainty and anger. Beware of that.
Comment by Kralizec — May 14, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Looking back, I see that I should have proofread. I said, “Total fertility of 1.3 means approximately a 40% decrease in population per year for the Catholics.” I meant to say, “Total fertility of 1.3 means approximately a 40% decrease in population per generation for the Catholics.”
Comment by Kralizec — May 14, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Thank you for your comments.
No, I am not angry and I don’t think certainty is to be gained from anger. The question of demographics is complicated to be sure and I am the first to admit that I am not a specialist in the field.
Nevertheless, I have two questions in reaction to your comment:
1. What is the assumption that native European fertility rates will remain constant based on?
2. What is the assumption that Muslim immigrant fertility rates will remain constant based on?
As my post showed, Muslim immigrant fertility rates have not been constant during the last two decades, which clearly invalidates the assumption that they
willmust [Ed. edited] remain constant in the future. As for the first assumption, the situation of the West today,and Europe in particular, is to my knowledge unique in human history. If such is the case, there is no historical basis upon which to assume that native European fertility rates will remain constant. If there are no historical parallels to the demographical situation the West is facing today, assuming constant native European is an arbitrary postulate grasped out of thin air.It is the assumption that the respective fertility rates will remain constant, or that their relation will remain constant, that I question. What is your certainty in this matter based on?
Comment by guftafs — May 14, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
I truly don’t detect certainty in myself about these matters. For one thing, as a matter of intention, I resist certainty about any matter except immediate, practical ones. It’s not that I’m certain that resisting certainty is always a good thing; it’s just that I know I can’t go on considering matters well if I fall into certainty. For another thing, I haven’t given global demography even such attention as Mark Steyn has; even if I were inclined to certainty, I don’t have a basis for it that’s wholly persuasive to me. Moreover, I was astonished by Mark Steyn’s thesis and embarrassed that I could have overlooked the importance of something so determinative of political outcomes as birthrates must be. Yet this isn’t the first time that I’ve discovered myself to have been critically ignorant or deceived; thus, it seems reasonable to suppose that I can be fooled again. Nevertheless, Mark Steyn’s analysis is consistent with what I’ve seen and what has been reported about feminism, careerism, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, singledom, taxation, welfarism, and environmentalism in the United States. It’s also consistent with my view, based on a lifetime of news reports, that the Europeans, broadly, are more American than the Americans in some unhealthy ways.
I surely don’t assume that total fertility either muslims or the various non-muslim groups will remain constant in Europe. A more important question is whether any changes will be or even can be large enough to change the overall outcome. Religion, other sorts of opinion, custom, and habit don’t usually “turn on a dime,” that is, suddenly reverse themselves or their effects. Biology also presents a number of important factors. Women encounter decreasing biological fertility, I understand, from approximately age 35; they undergo menopause approximately at age 45. Men encounter decreasing fertility as they age. Members of each sex tend to become less attractive to each other as they age. Moreover, feminism, careerism, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, singledom, high taxation, welfarism, and environmentalism all appear likely to be with us for a few more years or decades, as the case may be.
Thus, giving Mark Steyn the benefit of every doubt is reasonable as a sort of Pascalian wager. If one takes as a working assumption that Mark Steyn is right, one has one’s best chance of introducing changes to avert the demise of European cultures and peoples, and if Steyn is eventually shown to be wrong, the Europeans will have the good fortune of having more children and grandchildren than they otherwise would have. However, if Steyn is right but few heed his warnings, it seems likely that the death of many European cultures and peoples will proceed apace.
– - – - -
In one of my previous comments, I gave the wrong figure for Mexican total fertility. The figure is not 5, but approximately 2.75. Total fertility of 2.75 is still 34% greater than total fertility of 2.05. Understand, I have nothing against brown-skinned beauties; in fact, I often prefer them. It’s just that I also prefer them steeped in English, Lockean, and American traditions.
Comment by Kralizec — May 19, 2008 @ 9:00 am
After a few hours’ sleep, I’ve returned and looked back over your original post and our exchanges. You seem to be an open-minded yet appropriately skeptical man. You seem willing actually to engage Mark Steyn’s own express views, rather than rely on mere hearsay; however, for perhaps quite good reasons, you haven’t yet read his book, America Alone. Based on the remarks of Mark Steyn you quote above, it’s easy to understand that you may have come away thinking that he’s mathematically reductive or in other ways simplistic in his thinking. However, having read his book myself, I know that Steyn hasn’t taken a narrowly or rigidly mathematical approach to these matters. His book has recently come out in paperback, and I know from experience that it doesn’t take long to read. If you take time to read the book and “digest” its contents, I have little doubt you’ll have further thoughtful, interesting things to say about it and the subjects Steyn addresses. If so, we can go on discussing the book on our weblogs and in each other’s comments.
Comment by Kralizec — May 19, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Steyn has up till now ignored research such as that referred to in my post. The total fertility rate (TFR) is merely a snapshot of the current fertility of a society, and this is number that is constantly changing. The more carefully I read his article about demography, the more problems I find with it. I am writing about it now but it will be some time before I publish. If I’m correct, his article It’s the Demography, Stupid, presents the gist of his America Alone.
Here are some outright obfuscations I think Steyn is guilty of in this article and elsewhere on this topic:
(i) “The CIA is predicting the EU will collapse by 2020. … If anything, the date of EU collapse is rather a cautious estimate … by 2010 we’ll be watching burning burning buildings, street riots and assassinations on American network news every night.”
Here’s what I found (I think this must be the report Steyn refers to):
“THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.”
But the disintegration of the political entity EU is not the same as the civilizational collapse of Europe that Steyn envisions (by 2010).
(ii) “According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah–in the United Kingdom”
Here’s the answer in full:
“Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts – operating on sharia principles – “so long as the penalties did not contravene British law”. A major part of civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.” [Ed. (my bold)]
There’s still a difference to omitting the qualifying clause as Steyn did and to including it.
[Ed. added]
And continuing from that same poll:
“On other matters, the poll however shows that there is something of a crisis in the leadership of British Muslims with only 37 per cent saying they think that Muslim religious leaders or the Muslim Council of Britain reflect their own views.” (my bold)
So, the hateful utterings of Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk are in fact supported only by a minority, albeit a considerable one. Omissions like these do not increase Steyn’s credibility.
(iii) Elsewhere Steyn writes:
“… the point of “lowest-low” fertility [TFR of 1.3] from which no human society has ever recovered.”
This is the equivalent of talking about probabilities of finding intelligent life in outer space, that is, pure speculation based on nothing. [Ed., or, rather, talking about the frequency of intelligent life in outer space.]
Comment by guftafs — May 20, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
In your point (i), you said, “But the disintegration of the political entity EU is not the same as the civilizational collapse of Europe that Steyn envisions (by 2010).” It’s true that the collapse of the EU as a political entity doesn’t entail civilizational collapse. However, it does seem a civilizational collapse would entail collapse of the EU.
Regarding your point (ii), the wording of questions belongs to the pollsters, not to the polled. Regardless, the notion of Islamic courts fudging the divine laws to save their compatibility with British laws seems incoherent, and it seems such practices will necessarily be unstable. Nor does it seem that such objections as “Oh, but that’s not what respondents told pollsters in 2008″ will hold back creeping sharia. As for the distinction between sharia principles and sharia penalties, I’m sure it was a comfortable one for the pollsters and the laymen they polled, but it’s also incoherent, as I think you’ll be quick to admit if an Islamic judge ever asks you.
As for “only 37 per cent [of respondents] saying they think that Muslim religious leaders or the Muslim Council of Britain reflect their own views,” 37 per cent is already a large fraction, and it’s just that fraction of respondents who had the nerve to admit their agreement. And now it seems you must re-evaluate what you think of as your own penetrating distrust. If Steyn doesn’t make these sorts of points on this occasion, as he has on others, it’s an unaccountable and unmerited favor to British muslims.
Regarding your “point” (iii), we are not here to bandy words.
Now, at the beginning of your comment, you said, “Steyn has up till now ignored research such as that referred to in my post.” You seem to be in no position to say what Steyn has or has not ignored. And do you think your very next sentence is a searching objection, or such an obvious and inadequate point as to make an informed reader of Mark Steyn gasp? However that may be, with all your accusations of obfuscation and omission, do you really expect to be let off with basing your critique on an article that you merely suppose to provide the gist of Steyn’s arguments? You will not. Read the book, or don’t waste our time.
Comment by Kralizec — May 26, 2008 @ 9:08 am
[...] demands that you actually use numbers that correspond with facts. As it seems, Steyn’s use of an average total fertility rate of 3.8 for Muslim women in Europe seems to be in need of [...]
Pingback by A Critique of Mark Steyn’s Demographic Argument « Guftafs’ Blog — May 26, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Well, does the article sum up the contents of his book or doesn’t it?
“Bandy words”? Let’s not fudge them either, like former president Clinton.
I am against any introduction of foreign legislation including sharia, but full answer was different from the one Steyn purported it to be.
Yes, 37% is quite a few. So is 63%. Which is the bigger, do you think?
Yes, but the CIA report discussed the “break-up” of the EU and nothing else.
Comment by guftafs — May 26, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I realize you are using an back of the envelop model, but it seems you ignore the reality of continuing immigration, which adds to the total number of Muslims. Moveover, living in London, I’d say sending countries are changing, from those which fertility is falling to those were it remains high, e.g. from Turkey to Somalia.
It is interesting that your argument went from discussing religious birth differentials to country or origin differentials. If you are evaluating Steyn’s hypothesis — which concerns Muslims, regardless of country — you are making an ecological fallacy.
Comment by Mitchell Young — May 26, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
I don’t follow you. Some Muslim countries unarguably have some of the highest fertility rates in the world whereas quite a few have experienced a drastic decline during the last 18-20 years. The findings of the research quoted above was that birthrates for Muslims in Europe are approaching rather quickly those of the natives, which indicates (a) a lot more Muslims will have to immigrate and (b) they tend to embrace Western freedom more readily than one might first have thought. So, even in blasé Europe the Western ideals of freedom and individual choice for women are transforming a substantial part of the immigrants within a generation or so. That’s quite good news, isn’t it? See further my latest post for the reason why ultimately the counting of heads is irrelevant. I’m quite convinced Steyn is jumping the gun with his conclusions on this topic.
Comment by guftafs — May 26, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Excellent points well argued. I am not sure that Mark would not agree with some if not all of your analysis.
I think both you and Mark miss one element of the issue which is the relative localization of particular populations.
To use a Canadian example: the Vancouver suburb of Richmond has become at least 60% Chinese in the last couple of decades. (The number last census was, as I recall, considerably higher but I’ve not got time to find it.) The result of this has been the transformation of Richmond into a city in which Chinese people can (and do) function in Chinese with little or no interaction with the non-Chinese population.
This is hardly a recipe for civilizational collapse; rather it means that assimilation, if it occurs at all, is a three rather than two generation process.
Now, the Chinese population of Richmond is not demanding its own legal system nor is it home to extremist agitators – though the School Board meetings get pretty hot and heavy with demands for more homework and traditional teaching – but the culture of Richmond has changed radically.
The concentration of immigrant groups, the effective ghettoization of those groups and the sometimes hostile nature of those groups combined with demographic factors can, in fact, create situations in which the host culture is extinguished in parts of the host country. It is not unreasonable to ask if this is a desirable outcome.
Comment by Jay Currie — May 26, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Interesting point. The meeting of people with widely differing viewpoints and experiences is frought with friction in the best of cases. As long as the immigrants come to live in peace and freedom the fundamentals of the West will stand. The situation now is that our freedoms are encroached both from without but mostly from within, and weren’t it from the inner rot the external threat would not be a problem.
Comment by guftafs — May 27, 2008 @ 6:29 am