4 ms·

I agree, let's start here. Facts: Current birth rate among indigenous Europeans in most if not all European countries is and has been below replacement level f

by yot 15y ago

I agree, let's start here. Facts: Current birth rate among indigenous Europeans in most if not all European countries is and has been below replacement level for a few decades. Most population growth in Europe in the last few decades has been from immigration from outside Europe. The birth rate among non-indigenous Europeans in European countries is higher than indigenous birth rate. Projections (not fact): This trend doesn't appear to be changing and it looks like it will continue for many more decades. If the trend continues, in a few decades the genetic makeup of most Europeans will be more similar to that of non-European ethnic groups than to that of people who have lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years. Arguments (assuming projections are true): a) the projections above are a bad thing if you are an ethnic European and you predominantly carry genes that split from the ethnic groups of immigrants tens of thousands of years ago. b) the projections above don't matter c) the projections above are a good thing State why the projections are likely to be wrong, debunk argument a) or justify why arguments b/c are correct. Proceed.

seabee 15y ago
I believe your starting point is largely irrelevant, but first... A good justification for (b) can be found by determining the genetic diversity of indigenous populations from thousands of years ago and comparing to the present day. As an example the UK has had many 'immigrants' in just the past two thousand years alone, with the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans being notable topics on a good school's History lessons. Nevertheless, I believe your arguments aren't particularly relevant to the issues held by these extremists, who fear Islamic culture more than they fear Muslims themselves. They view 'multiculturalism' as the replacement of indigenous culture. If you want to go anywhere with this, you have to debate this more nuanced (and less scientific) viewpoint.
- yot 15y ago
  Playing devil's advocate. You used the UK as an example, however, Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were ethnic Europeans and these genetic groups didn't split from indigenous people in the British isles tens of thousands of years ago but more recently. The projection (not fact) above mentions that: "in a few decades the genetic makeup of most Europeans will be more similar to that of NON-European ethnic groups than to that of people who have lived in Europe for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years". In any case if you were any of those groups, you would have opposed an invasion from a later group. Picts fought Roman "immigration". One might interpret this as Picts wanting their genetic makeup to be more representative in the overall population of the British isles. I don't see how this justification might convince someone who is "an ethnic European and predominantly carries genes that split from the ethnic groups of immigrants tens of thousands of years ago" that the projection doesn't matter if they don't already believe so. I wasn't aware that these extremists aren't concerned about genes. I haven't read the manifesto nor am I planning to. However, people can still have a go at debunking the genetic argument above if they wish.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    The issue with the devil's advocate position is this. There's no such thing as an "ethnic" European. Race is a very recent sociopolitical construct, born in the 16th/17th centuries and initially used to justify English supremacy over the Irish and only later picking up connotations of skin color. The genetic differences between a Scotsman and a Spaniard are far larger than those separating a Greek and a Turk. Pre-modern European tribes did not place an emphasis on race; it didn't exist yet. Nor did they care about protecting the nation or their national heritage, as the concept of nation itself took centuries to form millenia later and only started playing a major geopolitical role with the French revolution. This isn't to say the tribesmen were multiculturalists; they had their own cultures and were often wary of outsiders, but mostly for reasons of self defense. But the supposed desire for genetic homogeneity didn't prevent Scandinavians from raiding the French and British coasts, abducting women, and forcibly mating with them, despite their cultural and genetic differences.
    - yot 15y ago
      By "ethnic Europeans" I mean a group of people who cluster genetically very closely and whose ancestors have lived in Europe for millennia. There is not just one ethnic European group, there are many.[1] I didn't mention the word "race" in any of the comments above. However, scientists show us that different groups of people on Earth cluster together genetically closer than they do to other groups of people. [2] This is what one expects if the ancestors of these groups parted ways millennia ago. What you mention about Turks and Greeks is not unexpected, Greece and Turkey being practically next to each other, I don't know why you bring this up. You are entirely correct about pre-modern European tribes and nation states. If the comment above implies something different from this although I believe it doesn't, then I made a mistake. We moved to the concept of "race" about which you are absolutely correct. It's a sociopolitical construct and the meaning of this word has not been consistent throughout history. Remember though that I didn't use this word. Back to the genetic argument, why doesn't the projection matter? (argument b) which grand-parent was justifying) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering
- rweba 15y ago
  I read a lot of arguments about how 'multiculturalism' and 'too many muslims' will lead to loss of social cohesion and lead to inevitable social conflict. My thought is how come Europe managed to have CENTURIES of warfare (100 years war, 30 years, LOTS of civil wars, World War I, World War I and LOTS more) and most of these conflict were purely intra-Europeans? The Englishman in 1700 saw the Spaniard as being just as foreign as a Swede sees a Muslim today - probably more so if the Muslim lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish. My point is just that if immigrants didn't exist people would still find something to fight over so this whole "immigrants are the very cause of social conflict" logic seems very dubious to me.
  - rubashov 15y ago
    > The Englishman in 1700 saw the Spaniard as being just as foreign as a Swede sees a Muslim today Um, no. The reconquista and various crusades were pan-european wars against muslims way before 1700. Englishmen died driving the Moors from Spain. There has definitely long been a European identity.
    - rweba 15y ago
      (1) England and Spain were at war around that time (The Spanish Armada sailed in 1588 so maybe change the date to 1600). (2) England was protestant, Spain was Catholic. (3) Because of the language difference probably most English couldn't communicate with most Spanish. I am also taking into account the average modern Swede is probably fairly well educated and relatively liberal. Of course I may have pushed things a bit to make a rhetorical point ;-)
      - trustmeimadr 15y ago
        On3. Educated people would have communicated effectively in Latin.
tripzilch 15y ago
The demographic "threat" Bawer and others constantly go on about is massively overhyped. Basically, every Muslim in Europe would have to have equal amounts of kids to those in Palestine and Yemen (two of the highest birthrates in the world) consistently for the next 50 years, while all of Europe would have to suffer the kind of demographic decline Russia has supposedly suffered (I doubt the official statistics, but you know the ones I mean) during the same period. It's a statistical impossibility, in other words.
- yot 15y ago
  Then the projection above is wrong according to your comment. I think that the best way to attack the projection is providing solid mathematical work, statistics and probabilities that show the most likely outcome. I believe that you are stating that it is statistically impossible for Europe to become Muslim, however, the projection wasn't concerned with religion or culture but with the genetic makeup of the population. It was my understanding that the projection comes simply from extrapolating the figures from the past few decades, apart form looking at the age pyramid of Europe and seeing how much immigration will be needed to pay for pensions, health care and so on. I haven't done the math myself so I can't tell you whether it is true. If this is a collaborative effort, then I think it would be wise for someone with the background to dismiss those projections mathematically. However to show that such a demographic change is not such a statistical impossibility, look at US demographics. Ethnic Europeans were around 80% of the US population in the 80s, they are around 60% now and it is projected by the US government itself that in the next few decades they will be below 50%. You can bump that last percentage a little bit to account for those counted as Hispanic whites who are actually predominantly indigenous Europeans. I know US demographics are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with the OP which relates to Europe. This was simply to show how such demographic changes are not impossible. Nevertheless, there could be other variables which I'm not aware of, that make what we've seen in the US possible but impossible in Europe.
- rweba 15y ago
  The assumption seems to be that muslims born, brought up and living in Europe would have the exact same birthrate as if their ancestors who lived in a very different society at a different time. For that matter, birthrates are plummeting in many developing countries including the middle eastern ones - this is generally not acknowledged in these kind of projections.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 15y ago
a) is ridiculous - if you want to reproduce, reproduce. Nobody's stopping you. Obviously ethnic Europeans have found other priorities. Only idiots think other people should reproduce so they themselves won't feel so lonely.
- rubashov 15y ago
  > Nobody's stopping you. Immigration discourages westerners from reproducing. Immigrants drive up housing costs, lower wages, and increase competition for school spots and good neighborhoods. All this makes family formation a more daunting proposition for people who aspire to maintain a middle class standard of living. Western and East Asian birth rates probably reflect collective decisions that the lands are full. To respond by opening the borders to millions of foreigners makes no sense.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    I am having a really, really hard time not going ad-hominem on this, but ... I think you're wrong. Home buyers drive up housing costs, which is generally considered a good thing - and mortgage bankers drive up costs way more than immigrants, and the people selling those houses really don't complain. Employers drive down wages, which is called "productivity", although I'm sure they'd like you to believe immigrants are at fault. Children increase competition for school spots - although their parents help pay for more school spots, so it typically works out well. Western and East Asian birth rates reflect collective decisions that people have better things to do than have a bunch of kids. If you have a wife, she may understand this better than you do. (Apologies if you yourself are female.) Puerto Rico is more full than Europe (it surprised me to learn this, too) - but poor, mostly. The birth rate is still quite high there. This alone probably doesn't refute your argument, but I hope it at least makes you think a little. All in all, though, you seem to be saying that immigrants are at fault for economics working the way it does. I think you need to ask yourself, really carefully, who benefits when you ascribe these things to immigration.
alain94040 15y ago
d) survivor bias: you conveniently use the term "European" because it is now considered an integrated population, but one century ago, French people were scared of Italians immigrating. That's just an example. There was no such thing as being "European".
- rbanffy 15y ago
  You don't need to go back a century - just think of Yugoslavia 20 years ago...
- yot 15y ago
  Correct. Now imagine that you are DNA mutations A and B carried by French people and I'm mutations C and D carried by Italians. If 200 years ago 80% of the population carried mutations A and B and today only 20% of the population carry them, while 60% carry C and D. Wouldn't you say that you have lost? Two other points though: -Italian immigration wasn't anywhere near the scale of present day immigration to Europe. In other words the percentages in the example above aren't close to the real ones, however, the projection says that the percentages of European v.s. non-European genes would be as low as that or lower. -French and Italians cluster genetically right next to each other compared to current immigrating populations. Now why this makes a difference for some people, read this other comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808602 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808602
icebraining 15y ago
But that argument is incomplete! It boils down to: . The current trends lead to a projection of a different genetic makeup than the current . The projection is a bad thing Therefore, the current trends are bad. But the argument fails to address why the projection is bad. That premise needs to be justified for the argument to be valid.
- rubashov 15y ago
  If you need someone to explain to you why it would be bad for the West to die and be reformed along the lines of current mid-eastern muslim nations, I really don't know what to say. You don't find it obvious that Western Civilization is good and worth preserving?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    First, I don't think there's a single Western Civilization; Europe is in many ways different than the US, even if they're both 'western'. Second, I don't think a change in the genetic makeup (which is what the projections point to) would necessarily mean the death of the Western civilization. In fact, the many Western values have already spread beyond the West, leading to miscegenation of cultures. The same would be true for an Europe with a higher number of people with different genetic makeup. Personally, I'm more worried about the loss of local values in the face of the giant which is the US, which has much more power to disseminate them than any Muslim country.
    - rubashov 15y ago
      > I don't think a change in the genetic makeup would necessarily mean the death of the Western civilization A change in the genetic makeup of Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria from Christian ethnicities to Arab certainly lead to the death of those cultures. You don't understand that races and cultures are two very intertwined things.
      - Steko 15y ago
        Please some citations for this claimed major genetic shift.

by yot 15y ago

seabee 15y ago

I believe your starting point is largely irrelevant, but first... A good justification for (b) can be found by determining the genetic diversity of indigenous populations from thousands of years ago and comparing to the present day. As an example the UK has had many 'immigrants' in just the past two thousand years alone, with the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans being notable topics on a good school's History lessons. Nevertheless, I believe your arguments aren't particularly relevant to the issues held by these extremists, who fear Islamic culture more than they fear Muslims themselves. They view 'multiculturalism' as the replacement of indigenous culture. If you want to go anywhere with this, you have to debate this more nuanced (and less scientific) viewpoint.

yot 15y ago
Playing devil's advocate. You used the UK as an example, however, Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were ethnic Europeans and these genetic groups didn't split from indigenous people in the British isles tens of thousands of years ago but more recently. The projection (not fact) above mentions that: "in a few decades the genetic makeup of most Europeans will be more similar to that of NON-European ethnic groups than to that of people who have lived in Europe for TENS OF THOUSANDS of years". In any case if you were any of those groups, you would have opposed an invasion from a later group. Picts fought Roman "immigration". One might interpret this as Picts wanting their genetic makeup to be more representative in the overall population of the British isles. I don't see how this justification might convince someone who is "an ethnic European and predominantly carries genes that split from the ethnic groups of immigrants tens of thousands of years ago" that the projection doesn't matter if they don't already believe so. I wasn't aware that these extremists aren't concerned about genes. I haven't read the manifesto nor am I planning to. However, people can still have a go at debunking the genetic argument above if they wish.
- scarmig 15y ago
  The issue with the devil's advocate position is this. There's no such thing as an "ethnic" European. Race is a very recent sociopolitical construct, born in the 16th/17th centuries and initially used to justify English supremacy over the Irish and only later picking up connotations of skin color. The genetic differences between a Scotsman and a Spaniard are far larger than those separating a Greek and a Turk. Pre-modern European tribes did not place an emphasis on race; it didn't exist yet. Nor did they care about protecting the nation or their national heritage, as the concept of nation itself took centuries to form millenia later and only started playing a major geopolitical role with the French revolution. This isn't to say the tribesmen were multiculturalists; they had their own cultures and were often wary of outsiders, but mostly for reasons of self defense. But the supposed desire for genetic homogeneity didn't prevent Scandinavians from raiding the French and British coasts, abducting women, and forcibly mating with them, despite their cultural and genetic differences.
  - yot 15y ago
    By "ethnic Europeans" I mean a group of people who cluster genetically very closely and whose ancestors have lived in Europe for millennia. There is not just one ethnic European group, there are many.[1] I didn't mention the word "race" in any of the comments above. However, scientists show us that different groups of people on Earth cluster together genetically closer than they do to other groups of people. [2] This is what one expects if the ancestors of these groups parted ways millennia ago. What you mention about Turks and Greeks is not unexpected, Greece and Turkey being practically next to each other, I don't know why you bring this up. You are entirely correct about pre-modern European tribes and nation states. If the comment above implies something different from this although I believe it doesn't, then I made a mistake. We moved to the concept of "race" about which you are absolutely correct. It's a sociopolitical construct and the meaning of this word has not been consistent throughout history. Remember though that I didn't use this word. Back to the genetic argument, why doesn't the projection matter? (argument b) which grand-parent was justifying) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Europe [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_clustering
rweba 15y ago
I read a lot of arguments about how 'multiculturalism' and 'too many muslims' will lead to loss of social cohesion and lead to inevitable social conflict. My thought is how come Europe managed to have CENTURIES of warfare (100 years war, 30 years, LOTS of civil wars, World War I, World War I and LOTS more) and most of these conflict were purely intra-Europeans? The Englishman in 1700 saw the Spaniard as being just as foreign as a Swede sees a Muslim today - probably more so if the Muslim lives in Sweden and speaks Swedish. My point is just that if immigrants didn't exist people would still find something to fight over so this whole "immigrants are the very cause of social conflict" logic seems very dubious to me.
- rubashov 15y ago
  > The Englishman in 1700 saw the Spaniard as being just as foreign as a Swede sees a Muslim today Um, no. The reconquista and various crusades were pan-european wars against muslims way before 1700. Englishmen died driving the Moors from Spain. There has definitely long been a European identity.
  - rweba 15y ago
    (1) England and Spain were at war around that time (The Spanish Armada sailed in 1588 so maybe change the date to 1600). (2) England was protestant, Spain was Catholic. (3) Because of the language difference probably most English couldn't communicate with most Spanish. I am also taking into account the average modern Swede is probably fairly well educated and relatively liberal. Of course I may have pushed things a bit to make a rhetorical point ;-)
    - trustmeimadr 15y ago
      On3. Educated people would have communicated effectively in Latin.

tripzilch 15y ago

The demographic "threat" Bawer and others constantly go on about is massively overhyped. Basically, every Muslim in Europe would have to have equal amounts of kids to those in Palestine and Yemen (two of the highest birthrates in the world) consistently for the next 50 years, while all of Europe would have to suffer the kind of demographic decline Russia has supposedly suffered (I doubt the official statistics, but you know the ones I mean) during the same period. It's a statistical impossibility, in other words.

yot 15y ago
Then the projection above is wrong according to your comment. I think that the best way to attack the projection is providing solid mathematical work, statistics and probabilities that show the most likely outcome. I believe that you are stating that it is statistically impossible for Europe to become Muslim, however, the projection wasn't concerned with religion or culture but with the genetic makeup of the population. It was my understanding that the projection comes simply from extrapolating the figures from the past few decades, apart form looking at the age pyramid of Europe and seeing how much immigration will be needed to pay for pensions, health care and so on. I haven't done the math myself so I can't tell you whether it is true. If this is a collaborative effort, then I think it would be wise for someone with the background to dismiss those projections mathematically. However to show that such a demographic change is not such a statistical impossibility, look at US demographics. Ethnic Europeans were around 80% of the US population in the 80s, they are around 60% now and it is projected by the US government itself that in the next few decades they will be below 50%. You can bump that last percentage a little bit to account for those counted as Hispanic whites who are actually predominantly indigenous Europeans. I know US demographics are completely unrelated and have nothing to do with the OP which relates to Europe. This was simply to show how such demographic changes are not impossible. Nevertheless, there could be other variables which I'm not aware of, that make what we've seen in the US possible but impossible in Europe.
rweba 15y ago
The assumption seems to be that muslims born, brought up and living in Europe would have the exact same birthrate as if their ancestors who lived in a very different society at a different time. For that matter, birthrates are plummeting in many developing countries including the middle eastern ones - this is generally not acknowledged in these kind of projections.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Vivtek 15y ago

a) is ridiculous - if you want to reproduce, reproduce. Nobody's stopping you. Obviously ethnic Europeans have found other priorities. Only idiots think other people should reproduce so they themselves won't feel so lonely.

rubashov 15y ago
> Nobody's stopping you. Immigration discourages westerners from reproducing. Immigrants drive up housing costs, lower wages, and increase competition for school spots and good neighborhoods. All this makes family formation a more daunting proposition for people who aspire to maintain a middle class standard of living. Western and East Asian birth rates probably reflect collective decisions that the lands are full. To respond by opening the borders to millions of foreigners makes no sense.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  I am having a really, really hard time not going ad-hominem on this, but ... I think you're wrong. Home buyers drive up housing costs, which is generally considered a good thing - and mortgage bankers drive up costs way more than immigrants, and the people selling those houses really don't complain. Employers drive down wages, which is called "productivity", although I'm sure they'd like you to believe immigrants are at fault. Children increase competition for school spots - although their parents help pay for more school spots, so it typically works out well. Western and East Asian birth rates reflect collective decisions that people have better things to do than have a bunch of kids. If you have a wife, she may understand this better than you do. (Apologies if you yourself are female.) Puerto Rico is more full than Europe (it surprised me to learn this, too) - but poor, mostly. The birth rate is still quite high there. This alone probably doesn't refute your argument, but I hope it at least makes you think a little. All in all, though, you seem to be saying that immigrants are at fault for economics working the way it does. I think you need to ask yourself, really carefully, who benefits when you ascribe these things to immigration.

alain94040 15y ago

d) survivor bias: you conveniently use the term "European" because it is now considered an integrated population, but one century ago, French people were scared of Italians immigrating. That's just an example. There was no such thing as being "European".

rbanffy 15y ago
You don't need to go back a century - just think of Yugoslavia 20 years ago...
yot 15y ago
Correct. Now imagine that you are DNA mutations A and B carried by French people and I'm mutations C and D carried by Italians. If 200 years ago 80% of the population carried mutations A and B and today only 20% of the population carry them, while 60% carry C and D. Wouldn't you say that you have lost? Two other points though: -Italian immigration wasn't anywhere near the scale of present day immigration to Europe. In other words the percentages in the example above aren't close to the real ones, however, the projection says that the percentages of European v.s. non-European genes would be as low as that or lower. -French and Italians cluster genetically right next to each other compared to current immigrating populations. Now why this makes a difference for some people, read this other comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808602 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2808602

icebraining 15y ago

But that argument is incomplete! It boils down to: . The current trends lead to a projection of a different genetic makeup than the current . The projection is a bad thing Therefore, the current trends are bad. But the argument fails to address why the projection is bad. That premise needs to be justified for the argument to be valid.

rubashov 15y ago
If you need someone to explain to you why it would be bad for the West to die and be reformed along the lines of current mid-eastern muslim nations, I really don't know what to say. You don't find it obvious that Western Civilization is good and worth preserving?
- icebraining 15y ago
  First, I don't think there's a single Western Civilization; Europe is in many ways different than the US, even if they're both 'western'. Second, I don't think a change in the genetic makeup (which is what the projections point to) would necessarily mean the death of the Western civilization. In fact, the many Western values have already spread beyond the West, leading to miscegenation of cultures. The same would be true for an Europe with a higher number of people with different genetic makeup. Personally, I'm more worried about the loss of local values in the face of the giant which is the US, which has much more power to disseminate them than any Muslim country.
  - rubashov 15y ago
    > I don't think a change in the genetic makeup would necessarily mean the death of the Western civilization A change in the genetic makeup of Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria from Christian ethnicities to Arab certainly lead to the death of those cultures. You don't understand that races and cultures are two very intertwined things.
    - Steko 15y ago
      Please some citations for this claimed major genetic shift.