[lit-ideas] Deographics: European and American
- From: "Lawrence Helm"<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Lit-Ideas" <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:43:56 +0000
Demographic concerns were an important element of Huntington's thesis and they
are a major emphasis in Steyn's book as well. Japan isn't going to revert to
militantism again because they have an aging population. China isn't going to
be the threat that some fear because they have an aging population as well.
All Islamic nations on the other hand have youthful populations; so they are
the ones that we have to worry about. It's your 15 year-olds who get excited
over each new book they read, the 15 to 25-year olds with lots of sap still
running through their veins, that are the potential trouble-makers.
But also there is the matter of rising and falling populations. European
populations are falling. Islamic populations are rising. If these two
populations remained separate then I wouldn't find some of Steyn's arguments
persuasive. A falling population isn't all bad. It puts less stress on the
envirnment, on agriculatural supplies, on natural resources, etc.
Unfortunately for falling populations, the welfare aspects of our Western
populations are dependent upon rising populations. We are living in a Ponzi
scheme. Some European nations, such as Spain (with a birthrate of only 1.3
children person) don't produce enough children to sustain their population
level. The average age of such populations is on the rise. Not to worry, Old
Timers, there are huge numbers of young workers just to the south of you eager
to come help you out.
Over here in America as Bat Yeor said before Steyn, we don't have the European
problem -- at least not yet. We haven't burdened ourselves with entitlements
requiring the genius of Charles Ponzi to sustain. Oh we do have some of it.
We have Social Security and periodically someone tries to base it upon
something other than the philosophy of good old Charles, but he is shouted down
pretty much as European leaders are when they try to bring their entitlements
more in line with what they can actually afford.
Bat Yeor and Mark Steyn both thinks Europe is doomed. Write it off. Call it
Eurabia. Both say that America is the last hope of the West.
But if the Left, the radical Left had its way, we would get out our walkers and
scurry after old Europe as quickly as we can. Note the recent Lit-Ideas
criticisms of Bush. A great number of them hold up Europe as our example.
Look at all the entitlements they have that we don't. We should be ashamed of
ourselves for not having them. We should become more like Europe, especially
Scandinavian Europe, but any old Europe would be better than the United States.
Why does the Left keep saying that? Is it because they think with their
emotions? Is it because they haven't read a book since they were 15? It's
difficult to fathom because they don't seem able to generate coherent, logical,
arguments. What sorts of responses do I get when I mount an argument? My
character is examined. My personal flaws are described, negatively of course.
And if I've crossed over the line and been too vehement, then a curse or two
seems to be in order. I can't help noticing that Bush is treated in the same
way: Lots of character examination, lot's of analyses of his personal flaws,
negatively, of course, and curses are directed his way in abundance, but I read
no coherent logical responses. What alternatives has the political Left
proposed? Might I summarize it as "we should become more like Europe"? If
that's what we ought to do, then we'd better hurry before it's all gone.
Lawrence, living in California with a population of 36,457,549, and growing.
Whopee :-(
Other related posts:
