History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:37 am
Posts: 2304
CosmicalStorm wrote:
Hans wrote:
As for radical Muslims outbreeding Europeans, what percentage of the Muslims in a place like Germany do you consider radical?


Several years ago I was hoping this number would be small.
But from for example PEW polling it seems 30 - 50 % support for things like the Islamic State, genital cutting, approval of Sharia laws.

More importantly, the people who support these radical practices are not going to wait for democratic elections.
These are testosterone rich dominant men who intend to make this happen by force if the state allows that. This is happening in large areas of Sweden as we speak, the state is not strong and Young men chase the police away with rains of rocks and sabotage.


I grew up in a country with a large Turkish minority. I'm sure that there would be less problems with the same number of immigrants from Denmark. But I lived for decades close to large numbers of Muslims and my experience is simply not supporting the black picture you paint.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 458
Hans wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
OK, 1:5 is not a huge problem, especially when many of them are Poles, especially when many of them are young, and especially when the population bulge of Germans is not yet too sick to work or fight. But is 5:1 a problem in your view? How about 50:1?

The argument that things are OK-ish now is not strong unless you are proposing to end it at the level it is at now. But no one is proposing to end this change today. It's impossibly controversial to do so in Europe. And indeed, the demographic change tends to strengthen the political faction pushing for more and faster change. If it is not OK to extrapolate this trend indefinitely, please tell me what is going to stop it.


I guess we don't need to discuss a 50:1 relationship as long as you don't believe that Germany will at some time have more inhabitants than China.

As for your argument that no one is proposing to end this change today, I think we differ rather in our evaluation of what most German political parties or the German population want.

There is no wish to push immigration from Muslim countries. For example Merkel has always and openly been opposed to Turkey joining the EU. And she opposed it at a time when the USA strongly supported the membership of Turkey which would have included an automatic right to move to Germany for 80 million people. And I remember articles posted on this board how Turkey deserved membership and countries as Germany were just their usual dumb self to not understand the opportunity.

Neither did the German government want the large number of refugees to come in 2015. It has worked a lot since then to limit the numbers coming and to increase the ability to send back people whose asylum application has been rejected. And the numbers of people coming to Germany (and to the rest of Europe) have gone down which is seen by the vast majority of parties and people in Germany as something good.

I think that a lot of people evaluate Germany purely based upon their own domestic political issues. They see Germany as an utopia, depending on their views either heaven or hell. But Germany is neither, we're as any other country a mixture of black, white and a lot of grey.

Germany has negative growth in equilibrium population, by about 1/3 each generation. Ending the demographic change doesn't mean just totally ending all immigration - and Germany had significant net immigration even before the refugee crisis - but deporting lawful permanent residents ad citizens already there. That, or enormously boosting the native birth rate.

No one is proposing anything that will stabilise let alone reverse the displacement of the ethnic German population, and in Germany it would probably be illegal to do so.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
I have no view on that question, and I don't think it's relevant. The point is that even a small population that can reproduce faster than it loses members to conversion is going to come to dominate.

There were 5,000 Amish in 1920 (0.004% of US population) and today there are 318,000 (0.1% of US population).

If I understand your argument correctly, at some time in the future the USA is guaranteed to have a majority of Amish and will outlaw electricity. That's tough.

That seems likely to me on the 200 year time scale. In about 100 years the Amish will be around as significant as Jews are today, with about six million, and I don't see how any possible scheme could suppress such a large minority. Is the US going to open death camps for pacifist wheat farmers? If there are six million Amish having eight kids per family and the surrounding society is still having 1.7 (or, who knows, 0.7 by that point), the point of no return has already been reached. For that matter it might have already been reached today.

Now you might reply "I don't care what happens in 200 years". In which case, please refer to my fourth paragraph. The vast majority of societies that exist at any given time are descended from the minority of societies that 200 years ago cared what would happen in 200 years. Europeans in 1817 cared about their progeny. Europeans in 2017 do not.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
Now one can make the argument that with current numbers the time scales for observant Muslims (I will use this terminology because I am not talking about violent people necessarily) actually outbreeding non- and non-observant Muslims are long enough that the surrounding culture could recover its own ability to reproduce. That is true - but is it going to happen? And aren't the people advocating Muslim immigration largely the most resistant to pro-natalist policies in mainstream society?

Or the number of children by observant Muslims goes down over time. Or many of their children get assimilated in the German culture. This is what happened with the Turkish immigrant group. And opposite to what some people predicted, we didn't get more and more immigrants from Turkey but numbers have been low during the last decade.

Mmm, so I must have been imagining that large mob carrying Turkish flags cavorting through Berlin the last time I was there.

As I've said, some will convert out, but provided the out-conversion rate is lower than the birth rate advantage, it doesn't matter. Germany could reduce muslim birth rates to the population average by essentially outlawing the practice of Islam, but not with its current ideology.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:37 am
Posts: 2304
HMS Warspite wrote:
Germany has negative growth in equilibrium population, by about 1/3 each generation. Ending the demographic change doesn't mean just totally ending all immigration - and Germany had significant net immigration even before the refugee crisis - but deporting lawful permanent residents ad citizens already there. That, or enormously boosting the native birth rate.

No one is proposing anything that will stabilise let alone reverse the displacement of the ethnic German population, and in Germany it would probably be illegal to do so.


I'm not sure what you mean with ethnic German population. Do you for example include the desendants of the hundreds of thousands Poles who moved to the Rhur area in the second half of the 19th century? I personally think their descendants to be as German as me. Do you think that there’s a difference? And do you think that there will be a difference in 200 years between the descendants of a current Polish immigrant and a current German citizen?

HMS Warspite wrote:
That seems likely to me on the 200 year time scale. In about 100 years the Amish will be around as significant as Jews are today, with about six million, and I don't see how any possible scheme could suppress such a large minority. Is the US going to open death camps for pacifist wheat farmers? If there are six million Amish having eight kids per family and the surrounding society is still having 1.7 (or, who knows, 0.7 by that point), the point of no return has already been reached. For that matter it might have already been reached today.

The US could insist on forcing Amish children into schools which are run based on the ideas which the average American thinks normal. That way Amish children would be presented with different systems starting at a very young age and could choose between them when they grow up. As I see it, providing this choice isn’t just the right but the duty of the state.

I think the problem is that the USA has lost the ability to define what a common standard is. Instead the USA is a divided country which doesn’t dare anymore to impose standards. This problem is increased by the wishy-washy PC ideas which don’t allow to make clear statements if they hurt someone.

From my point of view, the Amish are wrong. If an adult wants to make the choice to live in the 18th century, fine. If you force your children into it, you’re a sect which needs to be fought.
HMS Warspite wrote:
Now you might reply "I don't care what happens in 200 years". In which case, please refer to my fourth paragraph. The vast majority of societies that exist at any given time are descended from the minority of societies that 200 years ago cared what would happen in 200 years. Europeans in 1817 cared about their progeny. Europeans in 2017 do not.

I think you get this completely wrong. The incredible growth of European nations (and the USA) in the 19th century wasn’t driven by the idea how they could care about their progeny in 200 years. It was driven by pushing progress and creating wealth NOW. They of course also assumed that this would help their progeny 200 years in the future (and were right to do so) but that wasn’t the reason for their actions.
HMS Warspite wrote:
Mmm, so I must have been imagining that large mob carrying Turkish flags cavorting through Berlin the last time I was there.

You probably didn’t imagine it but neither do you make a statement which is in my opinion in any way relevant in regard to birth rate of second- or third-generation Turkish immigrants, the trends of their birth-rates or the net migration from Turkey to Germany within the last decade.
HMS Warspite wrote:
As I've said, some will convert out, but provided the out-conversion rate is lower than the birth rate advantage, it doesn't matter. Germany could reduce muslim birth rates to the population average by essentially outlawing the practice of Islam, but not with its current ideology.

As I’ve said, birth rates of Turkish immigrants have gone down. This happened within the time-frame of less than 50 years. I’m absolutely not convinced that trends of high birth rates of whatever immigrant group would continue to stay the same for 200 years without being influence by the society they live in without any really special circumstances.
I mean, I could also say that I met a large mob carrying Irish flags cavorting through Chicago and assume that Irish women still get on average 12 children and will impose their papal rule on the USA soon. And a bit more than a century ago, I probably could have found a lot of people in US bars (or the congress) who would have agreed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:17 pm
Posts: 458
Hans wrote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
Germany has negative growth in equilibrium population, by about 1/3 each generation. Ending the demographic change doesn't mean just totally ending all immigration - and Germany had significant net immigration even before the refugee crisis - but deporting lawful permanent residents ad citizens already there. That, or enormously boosting the native birth rate.

No one is proposing anything that will stabilise let alone reverse the displacement of the ethnic German population, and in Germany it would probably be illegal to do so.


I'm not sure what you mean with ethnic German population. Do you for example include the desendants of the hundreds of thousands Poles who moved to the Rhur area in the second half of the 19th century? I personally think their descendants to be as German as me. Do you think that there’s a difference? And do you think that there will be a difference in 200 years between the descendants of a current Polish immigrant and a current German citizen?

Yes, they were different, but in 200 years will be fully dissolved, and may be fully dissolved now.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
That seems likely to me on the 200 year time scale. In about 100 years the Amish will be around as significant as Jews are today, with about six million, and I don't see how any possible scheme could suppress such a large minority. Is the US going to open death camps for pacifist wheat farmers? If there are six million Amish having eight kids per family and the surrounding society is still having 1.7 (or, who knows, 0.7 by that point), the point of no return has already been reached. For that matter it might have already been reached today.

The US could insist on forcing Amish children into schools which are run based on the ideas which the average American thinks normal.

It could have done this when there were 5,000 Amish, and with much expense and effort it could perhaps still do so today. In the face of six million in strong resistance, combined with the inherently fragmented nature of American government, and the protections of the US Constitution, I see no hope of such a policy succeeding in 2100, at least without measures and a belief system that would make outright genocide not so much greater a step.

Quote:
That way Amish children would be presented with different systems starting at a very young age and could choose between them when they grow up. As I see it, providing this choice isn’t just the right but the duty of the state.

I think the problem is that the USA has lost the ability to define what a common standard is. Instead the USA is a divided country which doesn’t dare anymore to impose standards. This problem is increased by the wishy-washy PC ideas which don’t allow to make clear statements if they hurt someone.

From my point of view, the Amish are wrong. If an adult wants to make the choice to live in the 18th century, fine. If you force your children into it, you’re a sect which needs to be fought.

To me the US education system seems highly politicised and authoritarian, certainly much more than the British. Of course Germany, which outlaws homeschooling, may be still more, even if the ideological content of the actual curriculum is less.

The thought does occur to me, though, that if we were to choose the default society based on fertility, poverty rate, crime rate, or perceived happiness, rather than absolute numbers, the Amish actually have a superior society to Germany. Naturally, a consenting adult may choose to live in an objectively inferior society like Germany, but perhaps we should leave the kids out of it, and let them have a better Amish upbringing until they are old enough to decide for themselves?

Of course if we were to choose based on absolute numbers, we should all receive a communist Chinese education.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
Now you might reply "I don't care what happens in 200 years". In which case, please refer to my fourth paragraph. The vast majority of societies that exist at any given time are descended from the minority of societies that 200 years ago cared what would happen in 200 years. Europeans in 1817 cared about their progeny. Europeans in 2017 do not.

I think you get this completely wrong. The incredible growth of European nations (and the USA) in the 19th century wasn’t driven by the idea how they could care about their progeny in 200 years. It was driven by pushing progress and creating wealth NOW. They of course also assumed that this would help their progeny 200 years in the future (and were right to do so) but that wasn’t the reason for their actions.

It really was not. The idea that European civilisation is about capitalism and consumerism is an invention of the Cold War, a sort of positive adaptation of an enemy narrative. If one had asked a Briton in 1850 or 1800 what was the basis of his society, he would not have replied GDP growth, but the Church of England. I suspect that would have been the response of the common man (although not of the governing class) in 1950 as well.

The church looked back upon the past, and forward to the future. It was an ancient institution, and intended to be eternal. And even popular writers, such as Rudyard Kipling, concerned themselves with historical themes in a way one never sees today. In the Gods of the Copybook Headings, Kipling concisely summarises this worldview, and more or less accurately describes the nature of collapse that our society would suffer. This too would hardly have surprised his readers, though, because they would have been familiar with the classics - a study of the ancient which has also mysteriously disappeared despite being universal among educated Europeans not so long ago - and it was precisely the path taken by the Roman Empire.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
Mmm, so I must have been imagining that large mob carrying Turkish flags cavorting through Berlin the last time I was there.

You probably didn’t imagine it but neither do you make a statement which is in my opinion in any way relevant in regard to birth rate of second- or third-generation Turkish immigrants, the trends of their birth-rates or the net migration from Turkey to Germany within the last decade.

It does not seem to me that Turks in Germany have culturally integrated at all. They seem still primarily loyal to Turkey. Even old Turks spoke with Turkish accents. I saw no Turkish-looking people in the prestige German institutions with which I interacted there. In contrast to the UK, one could almost pretend that there had been no non-European immigration to Germany at all if one only looked at the middle class society and above. On the other hand, one did see many people who seemed to be entirely German except for a Polish surname.

Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
As I've said, some will convert out, but provided the out-conversion rate is lower than the birth rate advantage, it doesn't matter. Germany could reduce muslim birth rates to the population average by essentially outlawing the practice of Islam, but not with its current ideology.

As I’ve said, birth rates of Turkish immigrants have gone down. This happened within the time-frame of less than 50 years. I’m absolutely not convinced that trends of high birth rates of whatever immigrant group would continue to stay the same for 200 years without being influence by the society they live in without any really special circumstances.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2014-001.pdf

Table 5, page 17. Turkish immigrant fertility rate is considerably above ethnic German, and though it has reduced, it has done so only in line with the fertility rate in Turkey (2.05).

Quote:
I mean, I could also say that I met a large mob carrying Irish flags cavorting through Chicago and assume that Irish women still get on average 12 children and will impose their papal rule on the USA soon. And a bit more than a century ago, I probably could have found a lot of people in US bars (or the congress) who would have agreed.

And Gerry Adams is standing guest of honour at the White House.

_________________
To stand an' be still to the Birken'ead drill is a damn tough bullet to chew


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:37 am
Posts: 2304
HMS Warspite wrote:
Yes, they were different, but in 200 years will be fully dissolved, and may be fully dissolved now.

Yes, their descendants are fully assimilated now. Which means for me that I can’t see any reason to oppose Polish immigrants coming to Germany.

HMS Warspite wrote:
It could have done this when there were 5,000 Amish, and with much expense and effort it could perhaps still do so today. In the face of six million in strong resistance, combined with the inherently fragmented nature of American government, and the protections of the US Constitution, I see no hope of such a policy succeeding in 2100, at least without measures and a belief system that would make outright genocide not so much greater a step.

To me the US education system seems highly politicised and authoritarian, certainly much more than the British. Of course Germany, which outlaws homeschooling, may be still more, even if the ideological content of the actual curriculum is less.
The thought does occur to me, though, that if we were to choose the default society based on fertility, poverty rate, crime rate, or perceived happiness, rather than absolute numbers, the Amish actually have a superior society to Germany. Naturally, a consenting adult may choose to live in an objectively inferior society like Germany, but perhaps we should leave the kids out of it, and let them have a better Amish upbringing until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
Of course if we were to choose based on absolute numbers, we should all receive a communist Chinese education.

All the expense and effort needed is providing schools. Plus obviously the political will to force children to attend the schools if the parents try to prevent it. This political will might be lacking in the USA but this is probably the reason why the number of Amish have grown that much.
Forcing children to attend school is authoritarian. But it’s in my opinion a logical consequence if you believe that children aren’t the property of their parents but citizens with rights independent of what their parents think. For me a child has the right to get an education which allows him to make his own choice about what he wants to do with his life. The parents obviously also have the right to education but in my opinion they haven’t got the right to restrict the education to only their own believe system.
In case of the Amish, it’s obvious how much effort they spend to keep away outside influence. It’s also obvious how few people who grew up with a different life-style feel attracted to the Amish way of life. If you’d offer the Amish children competing views, I’d be rather surprised if the same number would decide to stay with an Amish way of life as they do now.

The question whether the Amish society leads to better results isn’t relevant in my opinion. There are two reason for my opinion.
First, I absolutely don’t mind if someone tries to promote the Amish style of life. If people want to live like that, fine with me. But if a group tries to isolate its members from the outside world and from outside ideas, then you have a problem. As I explained above, at least for the children I don’t accept this behavior and think that the state should intervene. For adults, their decision. But it doesn’t mean that I need to like it.
Second, I think that a society needs to define a common ground. If you come to a point where everything is considered of equal relevance, I think you end up in a wishy-washy PC hell. A society needs common standards of behaviour, otherwise you end up in trouble. Of course I also believe that in a free society I need to accept different views and life-styles but that doesn’t mean that I need to spend a lot of time praising them.

HMS Warspite wrote:
It really was not. The idea that European civilisation is about capitalism and consumerism is an invention of the Cold War, a sort of positive adaptation of an enemy narrative. If one had asked a Briton in 1850 or 1800 what was the basis of his society, he would not have replied GDP growth, but the Church of England. I suspect that would have been the response of the common man (although not of the governing class) in 1950 as well.
The church looked back upon the past, and forward to the future. It was an ancient institution, and intended to be eternal. And even popular writers, such as Rudyard Kipling, concerned themselves with historical themes in a way one never sees today. In the Gods of the Copybook Headings, Kipling concisely summarises this worldview, and more or less accurately describes the nature of collapse that our society would suffer. This too would hardly have surprised his readers, though, because they would have been familiar with the classics

The 19th century was a time of incredible scientific advances and societal changes. When you look at what was achieved at that time and if you look at things like urbanization, revolutions, the growing political power of the working class, the rise of the USA etc., it was a time of upheaval and strong pride in achievements. People saw problems which had plagued humanity since ever solved by scientific and technical advantages. I think you can only compare the time of the Industrial Revolution in Europe to an environment like Silicon Valley, where a lot of people dream big and have every reason to assume that they have a chance to achieve their dreams within a few years.
You of course also had the wealth gap, the poverty, the losers of the societal change which at the same time led to new political ideas. It was a time of change. Even the interest in the past was driven by it since archaeology provided new and fascinating knowledge. Nobody had ever known for a long, long time about the Hittites or how to read Hieroglyphs. And then within decades one new discovery after the next.
HMS Warspite wrote:
- a study of the ancient which has also mysteriously disappeared despite being universal among educated Europeans not so long ago - and it was precisely the path taken by the Roman Empire.

Not sure about other countries, but I think in Germany it’s driven by the need to lean foreign languages. I still took Latin as my first foreign language and then Old Greek as my third. This would be seen today as extremely quaint since English would the obvious first language given the importance of it (you simply need to speak English in a lot of jobs in Germany). That means that Latin is pushed back and faces increased competition from French and especially Spanish.
HMS Warspite wrote:
It does not seem to me that Turks in Germany have culturally integrated at all. They seem still primarily loyal to Turkey. Even old Turks spoke with Turkish accents. I saw no Turkish-looking people in the prestige German institutions with which I interacted there. In contrast to the UK, one could almost pretend that there had been no non-European immigration to Germany at all if one only looked at the middle class society and above. On the other hand, one did see many people who seemed to be entirely German except for a Polish surname.

Yes and no.
The immigration pattern to Germany was certainly different than that to the UK with the Turkish people being the only significant non-European immigration group up to 1990 or so. Even after that, European immigration tends to be more important than non-European immigration.
Then you had the German idea of the guest workers which wouldn’t stay but return to their home country (something the guest workers to a great extend also thought at the time when they arrived). Things turned out differently but up to the 80’s Germany made very little effort to integrate the people which were expected to leave at some time in the future anyway. The guest worker program also meant that mainly uneducated workers came, often on average below the education level of their own country.
The combination of a low educational standard of the parents combined with very little effort by Germany to support them meant that also the second generation of the guest workers did very poorly with then German school system. People instead often went into self-employment like restaurants.
The current generation of people of Turkish descend is still performing below German average and is also considerable less successful than many other immigrant groups. But in comparison to 20 years ago, they moved very much forward. You start by now to get some Turkish descent middle managers in the big German companies when maybe 20-30 years ago there was close to none. The same with people attending university: below average but strongly increasing from a very low base-line.
The Persian immigrants to Germany and their descendants are an interesting contrast: they to a great extend came from the educated middle- to upper-class and came to Germany after the fall of the Shah. From my experience, I think that group has a considerable higher educational standard than the average German.
Quote:
HMS Warspite wrote:
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2014-001.pdf
Table 5, page 17. Turkish immigrant fertility rate is considerably above ethnic German, and though it has reduced, it has done so only in line with the fertility rate in Turkey (2.05).

I think the study looks only at first-generation immigrants. If you want to look at long-term trends, the behavior of their children is more important. The current trend is that that the fertility rate of the second and their-generation is significantly lower than that of first-generation immigrants though still higher than that of the German average.
But if you look at women of Turkish descend with higher education, they’re close to the German average (which fits with the situation in Turkey where rural areas have about double a fertility rate as urban areas).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group