Question re: demographics & Europe
David T. Bilek
birthrates in the Western world. So far as I can tell, only the
United States is even close to reproducing at replacement levels...
and that only because our immigrants tend to have a lot of kids once
they get here.
Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
attention in Europe? Are any countries taking steps to increase
birthrates? Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
than stabilizing! Italy's population will start an absolute decline
in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
is rising every year.
What happens when 66% of the population is over age 60? Surely this
is a recognized threat? And I don't even mean economically. It's an
economic nightmare but thats small potatoes compared to a whole
continent essentially deciding to fade away and become a historical
footnote.
For comparison:
replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
France: 1.85
Norway&Portugal: 1.8
UK: 1.66
Sweden: 1.54
Germany: 1.37
Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
-David
David Dyer-Bennet
> replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
>
> USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
>
> Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
> France: 1.85
> Norway&Portugal: 1.8
> UK: 1.66
> Sweden: 1.54
> Germany: 1.37
> Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
>
> Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
> Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
But this *isn't* long-term. And even the developed countries could
easily be considered over-populated. I completely fail to see why
people are so worked up about this.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
David T. Bilek
>David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
>>
>> USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
>>
>> Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
>> France: 1.85
>> Norway&Portugal: 1.8
>> UK: 1.66
>> Sweden: 1.54
>> Germany: 1.37
>> Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
>>
>> Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
>> Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
>
>But this *isn't* long-term. And even the developed countries could
>easily be considered over-populated. I completely fail to see why
>people are so worked up about this.
It's been a couple decades and the trends are, as I said, that
birthrates are continuing to drop. Why should there be a sudden
dramatic increase without intervention when trends all point to
further declines? I submit that a few decades *does* constitute
long-term in this context. If the population will implode over 50-100
years, surely 20-30 is long term?
Secondly, if you're interested (and you may well not be), read about
the demographics in Italy or Spain. They really, truly will become
disasterous in 25 or so years.
I didnt see any reason to worry either... until I did some further
reading.
-David
Niall McAuley
news:hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com...
> I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
> attention in Europe?
No, just the usual racist anti-immigrant 'pollution
of our precious bodily fluids' crowd.
--
Niall [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
> >>
> >> USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
> >>
> >> Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
> >> France: 1.85
> >> Norway&Portugal: 1.8
> >> UK: 1.66
> >> Sweden: 1.54
> >> Germany: 1.37
> >> Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
> >>
> >> Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
> >> Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
> >
> >But this *isn't* long-term. And even the developed countries could
> >easily be considered over-populated. I completely fail to see why
> >people are so worked up about this.
>
> It's been a couple decades and the trends are, as I said, that
> birthrates are continuing to drop. Why should there be a sudden
> dramatic increase without intervention when trends all point to
> further declines? I submit that a few decades *does* constitute
> long-term in this context. If the population will implode over 50-100
> years, surely 20-30 is long term?
"Implode"? Not at 1.5 births per couple it won't.
> Secondly, if you're interested (and you may well not be), read about
> the demographics in Italy or Spain. They really, truly will become
> disastrous in 25 or so years.
Getting less crowded seems *good* to me.
> I didnt see any reason to worry either... until I did some further
> reading.
So, why do you think we should worry?
Bernard Peek
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
>that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
>cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
>so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
>immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
>culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
>Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
European culture is already fading away, but falling birth rates have
nothing to do with it. Britain and the other European countries are
getting more and more Americanised as the influence of Hollywood grows.
I've noticed that 10 years ago most of the Dutch people I met spoke
English with a British accent. Now it's noticeable that more of them
speak with an American accent.
European culture isn't carried by the current generation, the current
generation is an insignificant fraction of Europe's history.
>
>I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
>attention in Europe? Are any countries taking steps to increase
>birthrates? Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
>than stabilizing! Italy's population will start an absolute decline
>in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
>is rising every year.
It doesn't get a lot of attention in Europe, and I hope that happy state
continues. If it gets too much attention some damn fool is going to
start a crusade to repopulate Europe. If I discover time-travel I'll
shoot their grandmother.
>
>What happens when 66% of the population is over age 60? Surely this
>is a recognized threat?
Of course, but it's a solved problem. The compulsory retirement age is
being abolished so that those who want to can continue working if they
want to. We have a vast excess of labour, enough that we keep having to
invent new jobs to soak it up. The problem isn't that the old people
soak up resources, it's that we have too many young people soaking up
resources without making a positive contribution to the economy. We have
millions of people doing make-work jobs. If times get tough we'll just
put the web-page designers to work farming the land that we are
currently paying farmers not to use.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
In search of cognoscenti
Kris Hasson-Jones
published these words:
[population diminishing in Europe mainly attributable to birth rate
lower than replacement]
>So, why do you think we should worry?
I'm not worried. But I think the Europeans might have a reason: not
enough new employees paying taxes to support the social welfare
system.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature.
David T. Bilek
>David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>
>> It's been a couple decades and the trends are, as I said, that
>> birthrates are continuing to drop. Why should there be a sudden
>> dramatic increase without intervention when trends all point to
>> further declines? I submit that a few decades *does* constitute
>> long-term in this context. If the population will implode over 50-100
>> years, surely 20-30 is long term?
>
>"Implode"? Not at 1.5 births per couple it won't.
>
It's at 1.2 in Spain and Italy. Surely losing over half your
population in under a century qualifies?
>> Secondly, if you're interested (and you may well not be), read about
>> the demographics in Italy or Spain. They really, truly will become
>> disastrous in 25 or so years.
>
>Getting less crowded seems *good* to me.
>
...
>
>So, why do you think we should worry?
Well, you and I are both American: our population is stable for now.
But I'm surprised Europeans aren't worried.
Anyway... two reasons.
First, because the population doesnt decrease instantly. Each age
cohort is bigger than the next, and the average age steadily
increases. At some point 50% of the population will be elderly. Then
2/3. You get the idea. What do you do when there are several
infirm old people for every worker?
Secondly, because we arent talking about "getting less crowded", we're
talking about cultural extinction in 150 years. If Europeans don't
care if their culture(s) and people(s) disappear, I'm not going to
argue. It just seems odd not to care.
-David
Andrew Plotkin
>
> It's been a couple decades and the trends are, as I said, that
> birthrates are continuing to drop. Why should there be a sudden
> dramatic increase without intervention when trends all point to
> further declines? I submit that a few decades *does* constitute
> long-term in this context. If the population will implode over 50-100
> years, surely 20-30 is long term?
Nobody seems to be suffering from the current population levels.
If, as you assume, there are deleterious social effects from
significantly lowered levels, that *is* an "intervention", by
definition. People will notice whatever it is that goes wrong.
I'm not saying that that equates to solving the problem. Nobody who
lacks kids is going to be enthusiastic about spawning some for the
good of "European culture". (I'm certainly not interested in having
kids for the good of *my* country, even if there were an argument that
it be necessary.) But it's not like the last Italian is going to wake
up alone in a room, and think "Oh my god, where'd everyone go??"
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Danny Low
wrote:
>But this *isn't* long-term. And even the developed countries could
>easily be considered over-populated. I completely fail to see why
>people are so worked up about this.
It is not the total population number that is the problem. It is the
changing age mix. A larger and larger percentage of the population
will be old retired people. They will require more medical care but
there will be fewer doctors and nurses available to care for them.
The retirees will consume pension money but most pension money are pay
with "as you go" taxes on current workers. However there will be fewer
workers to tax so each worker will be paying even more taxes than
today. So either you have inflationary wage increases to maintain the
same standard of living or the younger working generation will have to
take a decrease in their standard of living. Or everybody has to live
on less money.
Also there will be fewer working people producing cars, medicine,
clothes, food, etc. that everyone must have. This means there must
either be a major increase in productivity or a major inflationary
increase in prices or government mandated rationing of these items.
Alternately a lot of retired people will have to come out of
retirement and work until they die.
The equilibrium of our society is based on a certain ratio of people
in the various age groups. This declining birthrate will cause a major
change in this ratio which will perturb the system until the ratio is
re-established again in some manner. This is certain to cause
unpleasant turmoil. Logan's Run may turn out to be more prophetic than
people would like.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything? (Remove the first dot for a valid e-mail
address)
Robert Sneddon
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>
>It's at 1.2 in Spain and Italy. Surely losing over half your
>population in under a century qualifies?
Most of Europe is very crowded by American standards; we in Britain
have 1.5 times the population of California in the land area of
Pennsylvania. Land is scarce here; we need to lose half or population to
make housing affordable and give relief to the natural areas that are
being encroached on.
>First, because the population doesnt decrease instantly. Each age
>cohort is bigger than the next, and the average age steadily
>increases. At some point 50% of the population will be elderly. Then
>2/3. You get the idea. What do you do when there are several
>infirm old people for every worker?
Robots, euthanasia, something else. We'll deal with it when we come to
it. We're not frightened about it as you seem to be.
>Secondly, because we arent talking about "getting less crowded", we're
>talking about cultural extinction in 150 years. If Europeans don't
>care if their culture(s) and people(s) disappear, I'm not going to
>argue. It just seems odd not to care.
It seems odd for Americans to care, but you're a young country and
believe your culture is immortal and unchanging, perhaps, as children do
about themselves. Another five or six hundred years and you'll get used
to change.
Geoffrey Hoyle suggested the perfect population for the entire planet
would be about 5000 people as that was, he reckoned, the maximum number
of people you could get to know in a lifetime.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
David T. Bilek
>In article <h4pqrv4c2cfsi9a4l...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>
>>cohort is bigger than the next, and the average age steadily
>>increases. At some point 50% of the population will be elderly. Then
>>2/3. You get the idea. What do you do when there are several
>>infirm old people for every worker?
>
> Robots, euthanasia, something else. We'll deal with it when we come to
>it. We're not frightened about it as you seem to be.
>
Am I misreading you or are you being rude on purpose for some reason?
But I'm not frightened, thanks. Just very surprised. Don't you think
planning ahead is the way to go? Waiting until the economy collapses
isn't a winning strategy.
> Geoffrey Hoyle suggested the perfect population for the entire planet
>would be about 5000 people as that was, he reckoned, the maximum number
>of people you could get to know in a lifetime.
Hoyle is an idiot. Well, actually, I suspect he's joking. But if he
were serious he'd be an idiot. That's not enough people to maintain
even 18th century tech. Maybe not 17th century.
And thats leaving aside considerations about avoiding extinction.
-David
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
You'll import workers. And in fact you'll import workers earlier than that.
And those imported workers - let's assume immigrants rather than "guest
workers" under the German model - will acculturate where they are, and their
grandchildren are likely to be, culturally, about as Italian or Spanish or
as a native-born Italian's grandchildren are.
Talk to a third-generation-in-England West African sometime.
>
>Secondly, because we arent talking about "getting less crowded", we're
>talking about cultural extinction in 150 years. If Europeans don't
>care if their culture(s) and people(s) disappear, I'm not going to
>argue. It just seems odd not to care.
I'm seeing some degree of cultural evolution, but no more cultural extinction
than we get in the US. (Which is considerable; a lot of folk culture has
become extinct or embalmed, but we're managing to do that by replacing it with
US-originated-or-adapted commercial culture rather than with immigrant
culture.)
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
David G. Bell
<hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com>
dtb...@comcast.net "David T. Bilek" wrote:
> I've lately been reading about the shifting demographics and falling
> birthrates in the Western world. So far as I can tell, only the
> United States is even close to reproducing at replacement levels...
> and that only because our immigrants tend to have a lot of kids once
> they get here.
>
> Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
> that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
> cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
> so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
> immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
> culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
> Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
>
> I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
> attention in Europe? Are any countries taking steps to increase
> birthrates? Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
> than stabilizing! Italy's population will start an absolute decline
> in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
> is rising every year.
[details snipped]
Remember that, compared to the US, Europe has a pretty high population
density. OK, so maybe the cities are about the same, but we don't have
the same vast empty spaces. Could that be behind some of the
reluctance?
Britain is also exporting a lot of productive work, and even the more
leech-like jobs, such as telephone call centres. Can the current
populations be sustained? There's been some discussion in
uk.business.agriculture about whether a country can survive without
farming. What does the UK export which cannot be produced locally? A
lot of office workers could almost be seen as nomads.
I don't really have answers, just half-formed questions.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
"History shows that the Singularity started when Tim Berners-Lee
was bitten by a radioactive spider."
David G. Bell
<h4pqrv4c2cfsi9a4l...@4ax.com>
dtb...@comcast.net "David T. Bilek" wrote:
> First, because the population doesnt decrease instantly. Each age
> cohort is bigger than the next, and the average age steadily
> increases. At some point 50% of the population will be elderly. Then
> 2/3. You get the idea. What do you do when there are several
> infirm old people for every worker?
>
> Secondly, because we arent talking about "getting less crowded", we're
> talking about cultural extinction in 150 years. If Europeans don't
> care if their culture(s) and people(s) disappear, I'm not going to
> argue. It just seems odd not to care.
It is a different sort of population collapse, but cultural extinction
tends to occur when the _old_ disappear. Such as a population of
generally young immigrants as settled the USA. Though their native
cultures were not totally lost.
Anyway, Europe had a pretty big population collapse when the Black Death
passed through. Things changed, and those changes affected the culture,
but I'm more worried about Hollywood culture. (Hollywood money is a
cultural risk, but I wouldn't call The Lord of the Rings "Hollywood
culture".)
Dave
"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com...
> I've lately been reading about the shifting demographics and falling
> birthrates in the Western world. So far as I can tell, only the
> United States is even close to reproducing at replacement levels...
> and that only because our immigrants tend to have a lot of kids once
> they get here.
Wasn't this covered in a mega thread recently and the slack was being taken
up by various groups of either the religiously inclined or recent emigrants?
Do you consider the potential for the Anglo Saxon's to slip below 50% of the
population in the next few decades as a problem?
> Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
> that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
> cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
> so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
> immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
> culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
> Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
Perhaps. But you also have to look at some of the forces driving this.
Europe is, by Us standards really really over populated.
> I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
> attention in Europe?
Yes.
Are any countries taking steps to increase
> birthrates?
Yes. Mostly through huge tax breaks.
Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
> than stabilizing!
Not quite. The issue is women choosing to have children later in life.
Italy's population will start an absolute decline
> in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
> is rising every year.
True, but there is a creep effect happening in what it really means to be
"elderly". My grandmother considered herself old in her 40's and acted
accordingly. My mother is 72, goes to the gym many times a week, has 2
volenteer jobs, is learning golf and so forth...
The saying here is now that 70 is the new 50.
> What happens when 66% of the population is over age 60? Surely this
> is a recognized threat? And I don't even mean economically. It's an
> economic nightmare but thats small potatoes compared to a whole
> continent essentially deciding to fade away and become a historical
> footnote.
Maybe - but probably not. The population of Europe has often been seriously
culled and grown back. As the continent is over populated at the moment the
only issue is ensuring that you can increase productivity per worker to keep
up with it.
I'd personally bet on human ingenuity for that.
For myself, I accept I have to work as long as it takes me to save enough
money never to have to work again.
> For comparison:
>
> replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
>
> USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
>
> Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
> France: 1.85
> Norway&Portugal: 1.8
> UK: 1.66
> Sweden: 1.54
> Germany: 1.37
> Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
>
> Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
> Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
Not really, because you assume that trends are constant.
Per C. Jorgensen
<dtb...@comcast.net>:
> I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
> attention in Europe? Are any countries taking steps to increase
> birthrates? Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
> than stabilizing! Italy's population will start an absolute decline
> in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
> is rising every year.
It is certainly talked about here, for instance, the question of
taxes versus pensions some decades ahead. Of course, a deficit
of working population may be met by opening for further immigration.
One question is whether you will have immigration/integreation
or permanent, maybe politically dissatisfied, minorities. Of
course, that depens a lot on the behaviour of the majorities.
Per C. Jorgensen
<da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com>:
> True, but there is a creep effect happening in what it really means to be
> "elderly". My grandmother considered herself old in her 40's and acted
> accordingly. My mother is 72, goes to the gym many times a week, has 2
> volenteer jobs, is learning golf and so forth...
I've seen some politicians (as well as people from my parents'
generation) complain that people have started to lead 'young
lives' well into their thirties and maybe even forties. That
is, displaying college-like or even teenage behaviour when
it is time for them to buckle down, pay taxes and raise kids...
Well, as a 35 year old bachelor and looking at my friends,
I can't help admitting that there is something in this. But
generations differ, and I suspect that my life experience
would have been poorer if I suddenly had stopped smiling at
23, started growing ulcers, started voting for the Progress
Party and carried a "work camps for youth criminals" button...
:-)
(reference to Norwegian politics there...)
Robert Sneddon
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <h4pqrv4c2cfsi9a4l...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
>><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
> What do you do when there are several
>>>infirm old people for every worker?
>>
>> Robots, euthanasia, something else. We'll deal with it when we come to
>>it. We're not frightened about it as you seem to be.
>
>Am I misreading you or are you being rude on purpose for some reason?
No. Fear of the future seems to be the key to your comments.
>
>But I'm not frightened, thanks. Just very surprised. Don't you think
>planning ahead is the way to go? Waiting until the economy collapses
>isn't a winning strategy.
Planning about people and their attitudes and thinking and especially
technology fifty years in advance is really an exercise in futility, ne?
We had the "Limits to Growth" thing thirty years ago that gave us all
sorts of scenarioss, mostly bad and all missing the mark often by a
large margin. It was overpopulation pressures that were going to destroy
us then, pollution, lack of resources etc. The Big Fear right now is
terrorism and gas is still cheap (and will remain so for the next ten
years).
>> Geoffrey Hoyle suggested the perfect population for the entire planet
>>would be about 5000 people
>Hoyle is an idiot. Well, actually, I suspect he's joking.
I think he was looking at the question from a philosophical point of
view rather than a nuts-and-bolts biological/sociological/technological
standpoint.
> But if he
>were serious he'd be an idiot. That's not enough people to maintain
>even 18th century tech. Maybe not 17th century.
I think he was assuming sufficent competent technology and immortality.
>
>And thats leaving aside considerations about avoiding extinction.
Why fear extinction? (and that is a serious question).
Dave
"Per C. Jorgensen" <p.c.jo...@east-stud.uio.no> wrote in message
news:opryzfdy...@nntp.uio.no...
> På Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:36:50 +0000 (UTC), skrev Dave
> <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com>:
>
> > True, but there is a creep effect happening in what it really means to
be
> > "elderly". My grandmother considered herself old in her 40's and acted
> > accordingly. My mother is 72, goes to the gym many times a week, has 2
> > volenteer jobs, is learning golf and so forth...
>
> I've seen some politicians (as well as people from my parents'
> generation) complain that people have started to lead 'young
> lives' well into their thirties and maybe even forties. That
> is, displaying college-like or even teenage behaviour when
> it is time for them to buckle down, pay taxes and raise kids...
For my part I don't really want kids. Most of my friends have them. My
brother is on his third (come December) and I really don't see the need, nor
does my wife.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Per C. Jorgensen <p.c.jo...@east-stud.uio.no> wrote:
>På Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:36:50 +0000 (UTC), skrev Dave
><da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com>:
>
>> True, but there is a creep effect happening in what it really means to be
>> "elderly". My grandmother considered herself old in her 40's and acted
>> accordingly. My mother is 72, goes to the gym many times a week, has 2
>> volenteer jobs, is learning golf and so forth...
Yeah; our generation can't grow up properly because the previous one
is hogging the slot by refusing to get old.
>I've seen some politicians (as well as people from my parents'
>generation) complain that people have started to lead 'young
>lives' well into their thirties and maybe even forties. That
>is, displaying college-like or even teenage behaviour when
>it is time for them to buckle down, pay taxes and raise kids...
Heck, I'm past thirty myself now and the only grown-up thing about
me is that I do in fact work full time and pay taxes.
>Well, as a 35 year old bachelor and looking at my friends,
>I can't help admitting that there is something in this.
Beer and playstation forever...
--
Leif Kjønnøy, Geek of a Few Trades. http://www.pvv.org/~leifmk
Disclaimer: Do not try this at home.
Void where prohibited by law.
Batteries not included.
Ken Walton
> I know we have some european posters: Does this get a lot of
> attention in Europe? Are any countries taking steps to increase
> birthrates? Lifetime fertility rates seem to be falling faster rather
> than stabilizing! Italy's population will start an absolute decline
> in about 2005. And the percentage of the population who are elderly
> is rising every year.
Tax breaks for couples with children, big poster campaigns about
encouraging "the German Family" and how "children are the future" etc.
But the general feeling from opinion polls is that a significant part of
the population don't like children because they interfere with your
career, social life etc. Or the world's a terrible place to bring
children into.
I also know several women in their late 30s who are now saying "oh, why
didn't I have children when I was young -- all those years wasted..."
As for what someone else was saying about people living a young
lifestyle for longer, it's certainly true here. It's not uncommon for
student here to spend 10 years studying, slowly doing a degree and
workin part-time when they have to, then going onto post-grad studies;
all the while living a "student" lifestyle of shared houses, parties, etc.
As for the death of German culture; well, the English language is
everywhere. Even government departments like the Arbeitsamt (job centre)
routinely use English phrases in their advertising (though not always in
the way a native speaker would use it...)
--
Ken Walton
====================================================================
Free Open Source Software
Mozilla Web Browser/Email Client http:\\www.mozilla.org
OpenOffice 1.1 MSWord-beating office suite http:\\www.OpenOffice.org
====================================================================
David Friedman
Ken Walton <ken.w...@freenet.de> wrote:
> As for what someone else was saying about people living a young
> lifestyle for longer, it's certainly true here. It's not uncommon for
> student here to spend 10 years studying, slowly doing a degree and
> workin part-time when they have to, then going onto post-grad studies;
> all the while living a "student" lifestyle of shared houses, parties, etc.
All of which raises the interesting question of why this pattern exists
and how widespread it is.
One possible answer is that contraception and changed sexual norms mean
that people are no longer pushed into marriage and childrearing by the
desire for sex. Another might be the breakdown of traditional norms
associated with long term planning, perhaps in part as a result of the
state taking over some of the associated responsibilities. Another part
might be that massive state subsidies of schooling make it much cheaper
to live that life--at other people's expense.
Other guesses?
--
Remove NOSPAM to email
Also remove .invalid
www.daviddfriedman.com
David Friedman
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Planning about people and their attitudes and thinking and especially
> technology fifty years in advance is really an exercise in futility, ne?
> We had the "Limits to Growth" thing thirty years ago that gave us all
> sorts of scenarioss, mostly bad and all missing the mark often by a
> large margin. It was overpopulation pressures that were going to destroy
> us then, pollution, lack of resources etc. The Big Fear right now is
> terrorism and gas is still cheap (and will remain so for the next ten
> years).
Three points.
1. I agree with your general point. I actually have a book draft on my
web page (_Future Imperfect_, webbed for comments) speculating about
effects of technological change over the next few decades. For most
purposes I cut off my speculation at about thirty years, on the grounds
that past that the future is so uncertain.
2. One implication of this is that much of the global warming talk,
which involves arguments for large costs now in order to prevent still
larger costs a century or so down the road, should be ignored. Only
arguments based on costs that can reasonably expected in the next few
decades are worth taking seriously at this point.
3. On the other hand ... . In the particular case of _Limits to
Growth_, what was going on wasn't inability to predict technology fifty
years in advance, it was either incompetence or dishonesty, depending
who you believe. As far as I can recall, at the time it was getting a
big play, I didn't know a single real economist who took it
seriously--because the book got its results by ignoring the system of
negative feedbacks created by rational action, which is what economics
is largely about. And, of course, Julian Simon did quite a thorough job
of debunking the movement at the time. One of the authors was later
quoted as saying something to the effect that they knew it was wrong
when they wrote it, but they thought it was important to get people
frightened--I don't know if that was an out of context quote or a fair
one.
David Friedman
"Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
> "David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com...
...
> > Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
> > that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
> > cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
> > so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
> > immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
> > culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
> > Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
Surely that depends on to what degree the culture absorbs the new
immigrants. Consider the U.S. case. Most of the ancestors of present day
Americans were somewhere else a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet most of
their descendants are culturally American.
...
> Maybe - but probably not. The population of Europe has often been seriously
> culled and grown back. As the continent is over populated at the moment the
> only issue is ensuring that you can increase productivity per worker to keep
> up with it.
Often? The plague dropped European population by perhaps as much as 40%,
and there was a much slower decline from about 300 A.D. to 600 A.D. What
other incidents were you thinking of?
And in what sense is the continent overpopulated? Standards of living
are high by world or historical standards and I don't think death rates
from pollution are rising although I could be wrong. Population density
varies quite a lot, and Belgium and the Netherlands, which last time I
looked were the most densely populated countries in Europe (but I may be
out of date) are pretty pleasant places to live. I would have said that
if population does decline the reasons have nothing to do with
overpopulation--not increasing death rates, or low birth rates due to
poverty, but low birth rates for social reasons.
...
> > Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
> > Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
>
> Not really, because you assume that trends are constant.
Isn't that what "Long-term" above means? If the trend holds for only a
year it wasn't long-term.
During the thirties, birth rates were low and some people seriously
worried about depopulation. That was a time when economic conditions
were poor, which is a good reason not to have children. The current
causes of low birthrates are very different, so the question is whether
there is any reason to expect them to be similarly transient.
David Friedman
lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) wrote:
> >Well, as a 35 year old bachelor and looking at my friends,
> >I can't help admitting that there is something in this.
>
> Beer and playstation forever...
>
But I thought (from a Danish acquaintance's summary of the differences
among the Scandinavian populations) that had always been the Norwegian
attitude, except that before playstations were invented it was skiing
(and perhaps still).
Her version was that Norwegians were nice people but not entirely
serious--if you called up an office when it was good skiing weather,
there might not be anyone to answer the phone.
David Friedman
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
> Remember that, compared to the US, Europe has a pretty high population
> density. OK, so maybe the cities are about the same, but we don't have
> the same vast empty spaces. Could that be behind some of the
> reluctance?
Why?
Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
empty. You seem to be suggesting that a couple in Chicago will be more
willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate Illinois,
or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
planning to move there.
David T. Bilek
>In article <26sqrv8kvsee8cvju...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>
>
> Why fear extinction? (and that is a serious question).
"Extinction of the human species = bad" is as close to an absolute
axiom as I can imagine. So far as we know, humans are the only
intelligent life in the galaxy. I don't understand the mindset that
wouldn't care if the whole species died off tomorrow.
I don't know how to answer your question except to say that it's a
biological imperative.
-David
David T. Bilek
Yes, the reason for falling birthrates has little to do with
overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
rather than babies, they choose careers. (And no, I'm not saying
women being educated is bad!)
-David
Dave
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ddfr-FC3BE9.0...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
My experience of living in the US is that a professional couple in Chicago
could move to a nice suburb with large houses, gardens and a suburbian child
friendly enviroment more easily than a similar couple living in London
could. You have to travel a long way out to get the garden etc...
Plus, when you do get to the sub-urbs, certainly in the UK, the size of
available plots and general living conditions is pretty tight compared to
the US.
As an example; we had USian friends over to visit. We had a large by UK
standards end of terrace house, the kids of the couple ran into next door's
garden (they were at the time living in a suburb of Washington DC) - I
shouted at them and they genuinely hadn't realised that the area in front of
the building next door wasn't actually our house too, because they hadn't
seen houses that close together.
Bear in mind that this is in a pretty green area of Hertfordshire.
The living patterns in my experience, are very different in the US and much
more kid friendly.
My wife, very anti-kid, is South African and says that even if she wanted
kids she wouldn't want to have them in the UK citing; lack of space to play
in, crowded streets, weather and a few other factors.
Dave
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <bpkmbi$p0m$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>,
> "Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
>
> > "David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com...
>
> ...
>
> > > Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
> > > that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
> > > cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
> > > so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
> > > immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
> > > culture won't exist anymore. It'll be like _The Years of Rice and
> > > Salt_ except voluntary instead of as the result of plague.
>
> Surely that depends on to what degree the culture absorbs the new
> immigrants. Consider the U.S. case. Most of the ancestors of present day
> Americans were somewhere else a hundred and fifty years ago. Yet most of
> their descendants are culturally American.
We'll have to wait and see if that is the case in another 150.
> > Maybe - but probably not. The population of Europe has often been
seriously
> > culled and grown back. As the continent is over populated at the moment
the
> > only issue is ensuring that you can increase productivity per worker to
keep
> > up with it.
>
> Often? The plague dropped European population by perhaps as much as 40%,
> and there was a much slower decline from about 300 A.D. to 600 A.D. What
> other incidents were you thinking of?
There were several plague incidents which were responsible for respectable
percentage decreases in total and local populations. The population of
London is a good example.
> And in what sense is the continent overpopulated? Standards of living
> are high by world or historical standards and I don't think death rates
> from pollution are rising although I could be wrong.
I am thinking of housing availability and standards of living for families
compared to other coutries, or even, for that, matter compared to when I was
a kid.
Population density
> varies quite a lot, and Belgium and the Netherlands, which last time I
> looked were the most densely populated countries in Europe (but I may be
> out of date) are pretty pleasant places to live. I would have said that
> if population does decline the reasons have nothing to do with
> overpopulation--not increasing death rates, or low birth rates due to
> poverty, but low birth rates for social reasons.
Population pressure can manifest itself in a lot of ways. Housing costs are
frightening in the UK now, if you have a small appartment and want kids, you
might have a serious problem, or consider moving huge distances to afford
somewhere to live.
Likewise, if you live in a major city, you'll have to consider other
factors. Schools had sports facilities when I was kid, most of them,
especially in city or twon centre schools have been sold off.
> > > Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
> > > Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
> >
> > Not really, because you assume that trends are constant.
>
> Isn't that what "Long-term" above means? If the trend holds for only a
> year it wasn't long-term.
Ok, fair cop. I was thinking more of the current hysteria.
I'm also not convinced a population decrease is all that scary at the moment
myself.
> During the thirties, birth rates were low and some people seriously
> worried about depopulation. That was a time when economic conditions
> were poor, which is a good reason not to have children. The current
> causes of low birthrates are very different, so the question is whether
> there is any reason to expect them to be similarly transient.
They might indicate a logical result of the development of high technology
societies.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>I've lately been reading about the shifting demographics and falling
>birthrates in the Western world. So far as I can tell, only the
>United States is even close to reproducing at replacement levels...
>and that only because our immigrants tend to have a lot of kids once
>they get here.
>
>Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
>that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
>cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
>so. Much of Europe won't be too far behind. Opening borders to
>immigration would mean the land won't be depopulated, but European
>culture won't exist anymore.
Bullshit. Culture changes with immigration, yes, but it doesn't cease
to exist -- any more than a family ceases to exist when its older
members are dead and its younger members are carrying on mutated
traditions.
As a Californian, I certainly see this every day. The cultural
landscape here is dramatically different now from what it was when I
was a young adult, let alone when I was a child or when my parents
were children. But it's still the same place, the same people -- just
different. Continuity exists, particularly in the fact oif change.
Nations don't "commit suicide" when they absorb immigrants, even if
the old guys don't contribute so much to the gene pool: they just
change.
The grandchildren of the old Italian fishing fleet of Santa Cruz have
largely married other folks -- Mexicans, Portuguese, Koreans -- and
the landscape looks different. Pasquale's and Adolf's are gone,
replaced by a taqueria and a Chinese buffet, respectively. But the
place is still Santa Cruz.
But this is a bigger concern to me:
> And the percentage of the population who are elderly
>is rising every year.
>
>What happens when 66% of the population is over age 60? Surely this
>is a recognized threat? And I don't even mean economically.
I sure as hell do. WHen I'm an old lady, a huge proporftion oif the
population will also be old ladies and old men, and we will not be
able to pick strawberies, or fix plumbing, or change IVs. The number
of people available to do the esential tasks is an important issue to
me.
>It's an
>economic nightmare but thats small potatoes compared to a whole
>continent essentially deciding to fade away and become a historical
>footnote.
I just can't agree with this. Is a person less European if he's black
instead of blond? What language does he speak? What does he call his
homeland? Whose interests does he share? Does his food define him?
THen are present-day Europeans less European because they eat potatoes
and tomatoes and oranges? Does his religion define him? Are
Christian Europeans les Eurpean because their religion ultimately was
born outside Europe? DNA? Are Central Europeans less European
because they share DNA with Asians? -- oy, that's too hard, our
genetic variation as a species is so remarkably tiny, it's no measure
at all.
Back to culture, then -- what is European culture? Where do you draw
the line?
>For comparison:
>
>replacement lifetime fertility is around 2.1
>
>USA: 2.08, roughly replacement
but only because of immigrants -- if you restricted that birthrate to
people whose parents were born here, even, you'd find a much lower
level.
>
>Ireland (highest in Europe): 1.91
>France: 1.85
>Norway&Portugal: 1.8
>UK: 1.66
>Sweden: 1.54
>Germany: 1.37
>Italy&Spain: 1.26 or less.
>
>Etc. Long-term, aAnything less than 1.8 or so is a big problem.
>Under 1.5 is truly disasterous.
For whom, in what way? If Italy fills up with Giusseppe Wongs, who is
harmed by that?
I'm much more worried about how we keep the infrastructure from
collapsing before us old folks die off and leave the world with a more
manageable population.
As for weeping about the loss of human culture -- I'm more ready to
cry about Africa, where whole generations are dying before their
grandchildren are born, where generations of children are growing up
orphans, where there is no infrastructure to speak of to feed those
kids, much less instruct them in their cultural traditions and values.
Lucy Kemnitzer
David T. Bilek
>
>Bullshit. Culture changes with immigration, yes, but it doesn't cease
>to exist -- any more than a family ceases to exist when its older
>members are dead and its younger members are carrying on mutated
>traditions.
>
...
>
>I just can't agree with this. Is a person less European if he's black
>instead of blond? What language does he speak? What does he call his
>homeland? Whose interests does he share? Does his food define him?
...
I don't care what color people are. I'm talking about culture.
All of this depends on level of immigration. If your population is
300,000,000 and you get a million immigrants a year, your culture
assimilates the immigrants. It changes, yes, but it is recognizably
an evolution. But if your population is 10,000,000 and you get a
million a year, the immigrants assimilate *you*. Your culture doesn't
evolve, it gets replaced.
At fertility rates of 1.2, eventually the level of immigration needed
to maintain the economy will be higher than a culture can assimilate.
-David
Karen Lofstrom
> "Extinction of the human species = bad" is as close to an absolute
> axiom as I can imagine. So far as we know, humans are the only
> intelligent life in the galaxy. I don't understand the mindset that
> wouldn't care if the whole species died off tomorrow.
If I were faced with one of those implausible moral choices on the order
of:
1) Humans survive, in completely artifical environments, and the rest of
the terran ecosphere perishes.
2) Humans die out, but the rest of the ecosphere survives.
I'd pick 2, because it maximizes the chances that intelligence will evolve
again.
But thinking about it more deeply, you can't have humans in artificial
environments, unless you download brains into computers. You'd have to
create an entire ecosphere just to support the humans.
Anyway, there are some of us for whom the survival of the human species is
not an axiom.
--
Karen Lofstrom lofs...@lava.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What does he expect from the computer community?
Normality? Sorry pal, we're fresh out. -- Bruce Sterling
Robert Sneddon
<dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <26sqrv8kvsee8cvju...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
>><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>>
>>>And thats leaving aside considerations about avoiding extinction.
>>
>> Why fear extinction? (and that is a serious question).
>
>"Extinction of the human species = bad" is as close to an absolute
>axiom as I can imagine. So far as we know, humans are the only
>intelligent life in the galaxy. I don't understand the mindset that
>wouldn't care if the whole species died off tomorrow.
If I'm dead, I don't care that the rest of humanity is also dead. If
I'm alive then the human race is not extinct. If the human race goes
extinct the galaaxy and the Universe will continue on without us at the
wheel. If the circumstances permit then another race will develop on
Earth with something like intelligence (although it might not be
anything we'd recognise as being intelligent). If the circumstance don't
permit (we've only got another couple of billion years of habitable
conditions on Earth as it is before the Sun gets too big) then tough.
That's the way the supernova explodes.
David T. Bilek
>In article <dbhsrvs92ghtqbblo...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In article <26sqrv8kvsee8cvju...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek
>>><dtb...@comcast.net> writes
>>>>
>>>>And thats leaving aside considerations about avoiding extinction.
>>>
>>> Why fear extinction? (and that is a serious question).
>>
>>"Extinction of the human species = bad" is as close to an absolute
>>axiom as I can imagine. So far as we know, humans are the only
>>intelligent life in the galaxy. I don't understand the mindset that
>>wouldn't care if the whole species died off tomorrow.
>
> If I'm dead, I don't care that the rest of humanity is also dead. If
>I'm alive then the human race is not extinct. If the human race goes
>extinct the galaaxy and the Universe will continue on without us at the
>wheel.
(...)
Uh, do you have a family? You seem to be saying that it shouldn't
matter to people if their loved ones survive them. Once you are dead,
who cares if your kids die in a flaming car wreck the next day?
You're also making an argument in favor of fucking over the
environment for short term gain. The bad stuff won't happen until
you're dead, eh?
I must conclude you either don't have any loved ones or friends, or
you are simply playing devil's advocate.
-David
David T. Bilek
>In article <dbhsrvs92ghtqbblo...@4ax.com>, David T. Bilek wrote:
>
>> "Extinction of the human species = bad" is as close to an absolute
>> axiom as I can imagine. So far as we know, humans are the only
>> intelligent life in the galaxy. I don't understand the mindset that
>> wouldn't care if the whole species died off tomorrow.
>
>If I were faced with one of those implausible moral choices on the order
>of:
>
>1) Humans survive, in completely artifical environments, and the rest of
>the terran ecosphere perishes.
>
>2) Humans die out, but the rest of the ecosphere survives.
>
>I'd pick 2, because it maximizes the chances that intelligence will evolve
>again.
I'd pick 1, but as you note later it's not a likely situation.
-David
David Friedman
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
> Does his food define him?
> THen are present-day Europeans less European because they eat potatoes
> and tomatoes and oranges?
Why oranges? Sweet oranges didn't reach Europe until about the 15th
century (from China, presumably) but sour oranges go back pretty far.
And you left out chocolate--a great mistake. Clearly the preservation of
European civilization requires that they all give up chocolate. Coffee
too--it doesn't really come in until the 17th century, even though it's
old world. And paprika.
David Friedman
"Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
> > > Maybe - but probably not. The population of Europe has often been
> seriously
> > > culled and grown back. As the continent is over populated at the moment
> the
> > > only issue is ensuring that you can increase productivity per worker to
> keep
> > > up with it.
> >
> > Often? The plague dropped European population by perhaps as much as 40%,
> > and there was a much slower decline from about 300 A.D. to 600 A.D. What
> > other incidents were you thinking of?
>
> There were several plague incidents which were responsible for respectable
> percentage decreases in total and local populations. The population of
> London is a good example.
Your statement was about Europe. I can well believe that particular
places had drops more often. Unfortunately my historical atlas of
population is still hiding, so I can't check on whether the graph for
Europe as a whole has any substantial drops after the initial late 15th
to early 16th c. one.
> > And in what sense is the continent overpopulated? Standards of living
> > are high by world or historical standards and I don't think death rates
> > from pollution are rising although I could be wrong.
>
> I am thinking of housing availability and standards of living for families
> compared to other coutries, or even, for that, matter compared to when I was
> a kid.
Housing availability has little to do with overpopulation, unless you
have literally run out of places to put houses, which doesn't fit my
memory of travelling in Europe--not even close. And I think standards of
living in Europe are higher than in most of the world and most of
history. So I still don't see in what sense it is overpopulated.
...
> Population pressure can manifest itself in a lot of ways. Housing costs are
> frightening in the UK now, if you have a small appartment and want kids, you
> might have a serious problem, or consider moving huge distances to afford
> somewhere to live.
>
> Likewise, if you live in a major city, you'll have to consider other
> factors. Schools had sports facilities when I was kid, most of them,
> especially in city or twon centre schools have been sold off.
I doubt that has much to do with overall population density. There is
still a lot of empty space in the U.K.--it just isn't where people
choose to live. Consider Australia, which is practically empty--but a
lot of the population is in urban areas.
David Friedman
"Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
> > Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
> > empty. You seem to be suggesting that a couple in Chicago will be more
> > willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
> > size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate Illinois,
> > or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
> > planning to move there.
>
> My experience of living in the US is that a professional couple in Chicago
> could move to a nice suburb with large houses, gardens and a suburbian child
> friendly enviroment more easily than a similar couple living in London
> could. You have to travel a long way out to get the garden etc...
Depends where you live in the U.S. I think average real income is higher
here, and I suspect that land use controls, although pretty bad, are not
as extreme as in the U.K. As I understand it, U.K. policy for quite a
while has used "greenbelts" to force high density in urban areas--a
policy described by those who like it as "preventing urban sprawl." You
are describing its success.
> Plus, when you do get to the sub-urbs, certainly in the UK, the size of
> available plots and general living conditions is pretty tight compared to
> the US.
>
> As an example; we had USian friends over to visit. We had a large by UK
> standards end of terrace house, the kids of the couple ran into next door's
> garden (they were at the time living in a suburb of Washington DC) - I
> shouted at them and they genuinely hadn't realised that the area in front of
> the building next door wasn't actually our house too, because they hadn't
> seen houses that close together.
On the other hand, in lots of urban areas in the U.S. you have a solid
block of houses with no space between.
> Bear in mind that this is in a pretty green area of Hertfordshire.
>
> The living patterns in my experience, are very different in the US and much
> more kid friendly.
Could well be. The question is how much of that is associated with
population density.
David Friedman
David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
> >empty. You seem to be suggesting that a couple in Chicago will be more
> >willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
> >size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate Illinois,
> >or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
> >planning to move there.
>
> Yes, the reason for falling birthrates has little to do with
> overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
> independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
> rather than babies, they choose careers. ...
>
Certainly not true at the individual level. My mother had that option
and had babies. My wife had that option and had babies.
You might, however, be correct in a statistical sense--that might be the
reason or part of the reason.
David T. Bilek
>In article <flhsrv00rfatvi75u...@4ax.com>,
> David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, the reason for falling birthrates has little to do with
>> overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
>> independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
>> rather than babies, they choose careers. ...
>>
>
>Certainly not true at the individual level. My mother had that option
>and had babies. My wife had that option and had babies.
>
Of course not at the individual level. Is there any population
statistic beyond "100% of people die eventually" that can be applied
at the individual level?
>You might, however, be correct in a statistical sense--that might be the
>reason or part of the reason.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/97facts/edu2birt.htm
"Educational attainment is a very critical factor in accounting for
lifetime fertility differentials. Women with 1 or more years of
college have sharply lower lifetime fertility than less educated
women, regardless of race or Hispanic origin. Women with college
degrees can be expected to complete their childbearing with 1.6-2.0
children each; 1.7 for non-Hispanic white, 1.6 for non-Hispanic black,
and 2.0 for Hispanic women. For women with less education the total
expected number of children are: 3.2 children for those with 0-8 years
of education; 2.3 children for those with 9-11 years of education and
2.7 for high school graduates."
This is true in Europe as well.
-David
David Friedman
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
> so I can't check on whether the graph for
> Europe as a whole has any substantial drops after the initial late 15th
> to early 16th c. one.
oops. That should have been late 14th to early 15th--the plague reached
th Crimea in 1347.
Andrew Plotkin
>
> In article <bpjqkq$2a8$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> >
> >it be necessary.) But it's not like the last Italian is going to wake
> >up alone in a room, and think "Oh my god,
>
> ...who's knocking at the door?"
>
> Sorry, I had to do it.
I thought I already had.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Mark Atwood
> In article <bpjqkq$2a8$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> >
> >it be necessary.) But it's not like the last Italian is going to wake
> >up alone in a room, and think "Oh my god,
>
> ...who's knocking at the door?"
o/~ ... Go `way! Don' come roun' here no mo'! ... o/~
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right,
m...@pobox.com | people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <bpli6k$4nq$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> "Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
> > As an example; we had USian friends over to visit. We had a large by UK
> > standards end of terrace house, the kids of the couple ran into next door's
> > garden (they were at the time living in a suburb of Washington DC) - I
> > shouted at them and they genuinely hadn't realised that the area in front of
> > the building next door wasn't actually our house too, because they hadn't
> > seen houses that close together.
>
> On the other hand, in lots of urban areas in the U.S. you have a solid
> block of houses with no space between.
"Lots of" is kind of vague. I think you find it in older
north-eastern areas, and not much of anywhere else. It's very rare in
Minneapolis, and essentially unheard of in smaller cities in the
midwest and further west that I've noticed. I'd expect you'd find it
in San Frnacisco some, but I don't remember.
And they're not called houses; they're usually "row houses" or some
such name, to make it clear that they're *not* what we mean by "house"
in the US.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <dd...@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
Ross Smith
>
> Of course not at the individual level. Is there any population
> statistic beyond "100% of people die eventually" that can be applied
> at the individual level?
And the evidence for that one is just barely at the statistically
significant level.
(Assuming Arthur C. Clarke's famous line -- "Behind everyone now living
stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber
the living" -- is correct, about 97% of the people who have been born
so far have also died. 95% is generally considered the threshold for
rejecting the null hypothesis.)
--
Ross Smith ......... r-s...@ihug.co.nz ......... Auckland, New Zealand
"The vast majority of Iraqis want to live in a peaceful, free world.
And we will find these people and we will bring them to justice."
-- George W. Bush
Kris Hasson-Jones
published these words:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> writes:
>
>> In article <bpli6k$4nq$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>> "Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
>
>> > As an example; we had USian friends over to visit. We had a large by UK
>> > standards end of terrace house, the kids of the couple ran into next door's
>> > garden (they were at the time living in a suburb of Washington DC) - I
>> > shouted at them and they genuinely hadn't realised that the area in front of
>> > the building next door wasn't actually our house too, because they hadn't
>> > seen houses that close together.
>>
>> On the other hand, in lots of urban areas in the U.S. you have a solid
>> block of houses with no space between.
>
>"Lots of" is kind of vague. I think you find it in older
>north-eastern areas, and not much of anywhere else. It's very rare in
>Minneapolis, and essentially unheard of in smaller cities in the
>midwest and further west that I've noticed. I'd expect you'd find it
>in San Frnacisco some, but I don't remember.
Row houses are the new thing around here. (For maybe the last 10
years.) But that's because, like the UK, we have an urban growth
boundary to preserve farmland. So new construction inside the growth
boundary is often infill; take one or two lots that formerly had
single family houses in really bad shape, demolish the old houses, and
build 5 to 8 row houses. You increase profit and available housing
stock, and the County collects more property tax.
I've thought of building a granny flat to rent out (at the back of my
lot) if I end up staying in this house longer than I expect to.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all
they want." - General William T. Sherman
Niall McAuley
news:vhrsrvs4h84klamn5...@4ax.com...
> I don't care what color people are. I'm talking about culture.
If low European birth rates mean that our economy will implode,
old folks will starve or die when denied medical assistance and
we'll all be cracking open our neighbours heads and feasting on
the goo inside, then that's a problem.
If it just means that we can't maintain our native culture, and
abandon bagpipes and black pudding to watch wacky Starsky and Hutch
movies together with our new ex-African neighbours, big swinging
mickey.
Or are you talking about Muslim cooties?
--
Niall [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vhrsrvs4h84klamn5...@4ax.com...
>> I don't care what color people are. I'm talking about culture.
>
>If low European birth rates mean that our economy will implode,
>old folks will starve or die when denied medical assistance and
>we'll all be cracking open our neighbours heads and feasting on
>the goo inside, then that's a problem.
>
>If it just means that we can't maintain our native culture, and
>abandon bagpipes and black pudding to watch wacky Starsky and Hutch
>movies together with our new ex-African neighbours, big swinging
>mickey.
(1) Rassef award for this even-handed presentation, which does help to
put the question in the proper perspective. (And extra points for
"feasting on the goo inside".) Congratulations!
(2) [*] "Big swinging mickey"?
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Niall McAuley
wrote in message news:00A293D8...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...
> (1) Rassef award for this even-handed presentation, which does help to
> put the question in the proper perspective. (And extra points for
> "feasting on the goo inside".) Congratulations!
Thanks, Alan, but I think we must credit Kent Brockman for that line,
don't you agree, Professor?
Talking head: Yes, Yes I do, with apologies to Harlan Ellison.
> (2) [*] "Big swinging mickey"?
Mickey: coarse sl. penis (cf. langer, wang, prick, knob etc.)
Big swinging mickey: a large penis demonstrating a pendular motion.
colloq: something behaving as expected: not news.
Mark Atwood
>
> Or are you talking about Muslim cooties?
Shari Law, Honor Killings, and enclosed communites are hellishly
big "cooties".
You have to enculturate them faster than they enculturate you, for all
values of them and most values of you.
Niall McAuley
news:m3smkhc...@khem.blackfedora.com...
> "Niall McAuley" <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> writes:
> > Or are you talking about Muslim cooties?
> Shari Law, Honor Killings, and enclosed communites are hellishly
> big "cooties".
I think the word you're looking for is "yes".
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>""Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr"" <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
>wrote in message news:00A293D8...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...
>> (1) Rassef award for this even-handed presentation, which does help to
>> put the question in the proper perspective. (And extra points for
>> "feasting on the goo inside".) Congratulations!
>
>Thanks, Alan, but I think we must credit Kent Brockman for that line,
>don't you agree, Professor?
>
>Talking head: Yes, Yes I do, with apologies to Harlan Ellison.
All right, I retract the extra points. But knowing where and when to steal
a line is a skill in itself.
>
>> (2) [*] "Big swinging mickey"?
>
>Mickey: coarse sl. penis (cf. langer, wang, prick, knob etc.)
>
>Big swinging mickey: a large penis demonstrating a pendular motion.
> colloq: something behaving as expected: not news.
Interesting. I've heard "Big Fucking Deal" or "BFD" for this colloquial
usage, and "Big Swinging Dicks" used to refer to, for example, honchos at
Enron.
David Friedman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > On the other hand, in lots of urban areas in the U.S. you have a solid
> > block of houses with no space between.
>
> "Lots of" is kind of vague. I think you find it in older
> north-eastern areas, and not much of anywhere else. It's very rare in
> Minneapolis, and essentially unheard of in smaller cities in the
> midwest and further west that I've noticed. I'd expect you'd find it
> in San Frnacisco some, but I don't remember.
Common in San Francisco.
> And they're not called houses; they're usually "row houses" or some
> such name, to make it clear that they're *not* what we mean by "house"
> in the US.
They are sometimes described as row houses, but considered a kind of
house.
David Friedman
Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Row houses are the new thing around here. (For maybe the last 10
> years.) But that's because, like the UK, we have an urban growth
> boundary to preserve farmland.
It would help if you specified around where.
My vague memory is that Oregon is strong on "smart growth," meaning
forced high density housing. Is that by any chance where you are?
Mark Atwood
>
> > And they're not called houses; they're usually "row houses" or some
> > such name, to make it clear that they're *not* what we mean by "house"
> > in the US.
>
> They are sometimes described as row houses, but considered a kind of
> house.
"Townhouse"
David Friedman
Ross Smith <r-s...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> David T. Bilek wrote:
> >
> > Of course not at the individual level. Is there any population
> > statistic beyond "100% of people die eventually" that can be applied
> > at the individual level?
>
> And the evidence for that one is just barely at the statistically
> significant level.
>
> (Assuming Arthur C. Clarke's famous line -- "Behind everyone now living
> stand thirty ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber
> the living" -- is correct, about 97% of the people who have been born
> so far have also died. 95% is generally considered the threshold for
> rejecting the null hypothesis.)
You are confusing the percentage who have died with the probability of
the observed outcome conditional on the null hypothesis.
David Friedman
With no other control variables, se don't know if what is happening is
that educational opportunities attract women away from child bearing or
that women who aren't planning a big family are more likely to choose to
get education, as an alternative career to housewife.
David T. Bilek
Sure. But then you have to assert it is a coincidence that a great
many women who planned to have few or no children burst onto the scene
at the exact moment that higher educational, and thus career,
opportunities arose across the Western world.
Occam's razor would suggest they are related. So I think would common
sense. That doesn't amount to scientific proof, but it certainly is
enough for a decent working hypothesis. Give women options besides
pumping out babies and many of them will take those options.
I sure would.
-David
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <nv9trvondv0khpsbg...@4ax.com>,
> Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> > Row houses are the new thing around here. (For maybe the last 10
> > years.) But that's because, like the UK, we have an urban growth
> > boundary to preserve farmland.
>
> It would help if you specified around where.
>
> My vague memory is that Oregon is strong on "smart growth," meaning
> forced high density housing. Is that by any chance where you are?
No, Minnesota.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > And they're not called houses; they're usually "row houses" or some
> > > such name, to make it clear that they're *not* what we mean by "house"
> > > in the US.
> >
> > They are sometimes described as row houses, but considered a kind of
> > house.
>
> "Townhouse"
That too, but that's another very different thing.
Danny Low
>"Lots of" is kind of vague. I think you find it in older
>north-eastern areas, and not much of anywhere else. It's very rare in
>Minneapolis, and essentially unheard of in smaller cities in the
>midwest and further west that I've noticed. I'd expect you'd find it
>in San Frnacisco some, but I don't remember.
>
>And they're not called houses; they're usually "row houses" or some
>such name, to make it clear that they're *not* what we mean by "house"
>in the US.
In San Francisco many of the lots for those row houses are quite
large. They have a narrow frontage but are very deep. Many of the
houses are quite large with substantial back yards that are not
obvious from the front. As a result they can compare quite favorably
in size with supposedly larger suburban detached houses both in lot
size and living space.
Also a row house is considered a detached house as there usually is
physical space separating the houses. OTOH a townhouse is usually a
house that is physically attached to the house adjacent to it.
Townhouses are not consider a "regular" house for that reason.
Danny
Don't question authority. What makes you think they
know anything? (Remove the first dot for a valid e-mail
address)
Danny Low
wrote:
>All of this depends on level of immigration. If your population is
>300,000,000 and you get a million immigrants a year, your culture
>assimilates the immigrants. It changes, yes, but it is recognizably
>an evolution. But if your population is 10,000,000 and you get a
>million a year, the immigrants assimilate *you*. Your culture doesn't
>evolve, it gets replaced.
American culture today would be very foreign to the Founding Fathers.
Christmas as a national holiday? In their days Christmas was a papist
holiday that good Protestants did not celebrate. Furthermore Christmas
was celebrated by Catholics getting drunk and fighting and vandalizing
people's property. And Saint Patrick's Day? Another papist holiday and
it is Irish as well. All Americans know the Irish are savages. What
about this Italian food, pizza? Why would good White Anglo-Saxon
Protestants eat tacos? And why do police and fire departments have
bagpipe bands? Don't they know that highlanders are murdering savages
who should be wipe off the face of the earth? And why are beers called
Budweiser instead of good English names? And when did good Americans
started drinking wine? That is what the effete French do. And what is
this foreign substance called ketchup that one finds in all
restaurants? "Ketchup" is not even an English word.
American culture is a culture of assimulation and adoption. It is why
all Americans are also hyphenated Americans. Some aspects of the
immigrants original culture remains and some aspects get adopted into
American culture. Only German-Americans have ceased to exist as a
distinct hyphenated group. Italian-Americans still have communities
where Italian is the prime language. The same goes for other ethnic
groups such as Chinese-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Polish-Americans,
Serbian-Americans, etc.
No ethnic group except maybe for the Germans have ever been totally
subsumed into American culture and just about any group of any size
has altered something in American culture.
David Friedman
David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >With no other control variables, se don't know if what is happening is
> >that educational opportunities attract women away from child bearing or
> >that women who aren't planning a big family are more likely to choose to
> >get education, as an alternative career to housewife.
>
> Sure. But then you have to assert it is a coincidence that a great
> many women who planned to have few or no children burst onto the scene
> at the exact moment that higher educational, and thus career,
> opportunities arose across the Western world.
I don't think so. To begin with, it isn't an "exact
moment"--opportunities in high education for women have been increasing
for a century or so. And during that century there was very substantial
improvement in contraceptive technology, which is an obvious alternative
explanation for why birth rates fell. Off hand, I can think of at least
a couple of others.
We have two facts--a drop in the birth rate and a correlation between
low birth rate and high education. The second is consistent with my
explanation with no coincidence required--once careers became more
available, the women who in any case would have had fewer children were
attracted to them. The first happened over an extended period and has a
variety of alternative explanations.
Ross Smith
You are confusing a joke with a scientific paper.
Lee Ratner
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <20031121.08...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk>,
> > db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
> >
> >> Remember that, compared to the US, Europe has a pretty high population
> >> density. OK, so maybe the cities are about the same, but we don't have
> >> the same vast empty spaces. Could that be behind some of the
> >> reluctance?
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
> >empty. You seem to be suggesting that a couple in Chicago will be more
> >willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
> >size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate Illinois,
> >or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
> >planning to move there.
>
> Yes, the reason for falling birthrates has little to do with
> overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
> independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
> women being educated is bad!)
>
Not necessarily so, I think feminism was equally succesful in
America and in Europe but American women are more willing to have
children. In fact, three weeks ago, the NY TImes magazine had a
fascinating article on very well educated women selecting babies over
careers.
Lee Ratner
> > As for what someone else was saying about people living a young
> > lifestyle for longer, it's certainly true here. It's not uncommon for
> > student here to spend 10 years studying, slowly doing a degree and
> > workin part-time when they have to, then going onto post-grad studies;
> > all the while living a "student" lifestyle of shared houses, parties, etc.
>
> All of which raises the interesting question of why this pattern exists
> and how widespread it is.
>
> One possible answer is that contraception and changed sexual norms mean
> that people are no longer pushed into marriage and childrearing by the
> desire for sex. Another might be the breakdown of traditional norms
> associated with long term planning, perhaps in part as a result of the
> state taking over some of the associated responsibilities. Another part
> might be that massive state subsidies of schooling make it much cheaper
> to live that life--at other people's expense.
>
> Other guesses?
I think it has something to do with massive state subsidies,
contraception, and everything else you mentioned. It also has to do
with the increased availability of loans and credit and the acceptance
of debt. In the past having a debt and being unable to pay it was a
prisonable offense. Nowadays, being in debt is accepted and even
incouraged so people are less shy in accumulating debt while pursuing
their education and life.
Lee Ratner
> > Shari Law, Honor Killings, and enclosed communites are hellishly
> > big "cooties".
>
> I think the word you're looking for is "yes".
I think I must step in here to moderate between two factions. Mark
Atwood is overstating the dangers of the Muslim population of Europe
increasing. However, many Muslim youth and adults are attracted to the
more dangerous forms of Islam. The Europeans can counter this by not
being so upset about Muslim religiosity and doing stupid things like
forbiding Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarves in school
and work. The Muslim Europeans are attracted to the more dangerous
forms of Islam because the Europeans are only giving them to choices,
complete secularist assimilation or complete separation and
alienation. In America, we do not have this problem because we are
more open to Muslim religiosity.
Lee Ratner
> Christmas as a national holiday? In their days Christmas was a papist
> holiday that good Protestants did not celebrate.
Actually this was only Protestant sects like the Congregationists.
The Episcopalians and non-Anglo-American protestants celebrated
Christmas.
Furthermore Christmas
> was celebrated by Catholics getting drunk and fighting and vandalizing
> people's property. And Saint Patrick's Day? Another papist holiday and
> it is Irish as well. All Americans know the Irish are savages.
The first St. Patrick's day parade was held by Irish protestants
in colonial New York. You are right about the public celebrations on
Christmas and St. Patrick's day, those would have been fun and nice.
What
> about this Italian food, pizza? Why would good White Anglo-Saxon
> Protestants eat tacos? And why do police and fire departments have
> bagpipe bands? Don't they know that highlanders are murdering savages
> who should be wipe off the face of the earth? And why are beers called
> Budweiser instead of good English names? And when did good Americans
> started drinking wine? That is what the effete French do. And what is
> this foreign substance called ketchup that one finds in all
> restaurants? "Ketchup" is not even an English word.
You are overstating the Anglo-Saxonism of many early Americans.
America was very diverse even back then. Furthermore, our Founders
were rather enlightended and sophisticated.
Pete McCutchen
<gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
>Or are you talking about Muslim cooties?
Your friends the French are starting to see those Muslim cooties.
Sharia law, honor killings, rape gangs, restrictions on the rights of
women, the destruction of free speech for speech that is seen to
impugn Islam. The French have managed to compound their problems by
creating their own Muslim equivalent of the American urban ghettos, in
which a distinct oppositional subculture flourishes.
I realize that there have been false alarms before -- some new group
is horribly different than the old groups, and so they won't
assimilate, at least according to the Xenophobes. Until they do. By
that time, of course, the Xenophobes are on to the next group. It was
once a mainstream view to suggest that the Irish could never
assimilate. Today, that would be a wacky view, at least in the US.
Still, just because their have been false alarms in the past doesn't
mean that the alarm now is wrong. Assimilating Muslims doesn't appear
to be particularly easy. Even in the US, which is far, far better at
assimilating immigrants than any European country with the possible
exception of England, there are some problems. Most American Muslims
are loyal, or at least not actively disloyal, but we've certainly had
a few Muslims who decided they'd rather play for the other team. And
we've got groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations and
the American Muslim Council, whose short-term goals are to put Muslims
and Islam off limits to criticism and to destroy Israel, and whose
long-term goals include the establishment of Sharia law in the United
States. To be more mundane, just consider the rude treatment Joe
Lieberman got when he talked to Muslims in Michigan recently.
--
Pete McCutchen
David T. Bilek
>David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<flhsrv00rfatvi75u...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
>> independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
>> rather than babies, they choose careers. (And no, I'm not saying
>> women being educated is bad!)
>>
> Not necessarily so, I think feminism was equally succesful in
>America and in Europe but American women are more willing to have
>children. In fact, three weeks ago, the NY TImes magazine had a
>fascinating article on very well educated women selecting babies over
>careers.
You're incorrect; see my other post for a cite from the CDC.
Educated American women have birthrates in line with Europe at around
1.7 lifetime fertility.
-David
Per C. Jorgensen
> But I thought (from a Danish acquaintance's summary of the differences
> among the Scandinavian populations) that had always been the Norwegian
> attitude, except that before playstations were invented it was skiing
> (and perhaps still).
>
> Her version was that Norwegians were nice people but not entirely
> serious--if you called up an office when it was good skiing weather,
> there might not be anyone to answer the phone.
There is something in this.
When it comes to intra-Scandinavian stereotypes, Danes are reputed
to be the best at relaxing and having a good time, but also good
at being stiff and formal at formal occasions. When it comes to
Swedes and Norwegians, the saying is that Swedes live to work,
Norwegians work to live.
On the other hand, (especially) old-fashioned parts of Norwegian
society have got a solid dose of the "Protestant Work Ethic", even
to the level of praising toil and even drudgery for its own sake.
I've heard stories about Norwegian farmers protesting against
agronomic innovations, not because it meant learing new things
or making new investments, but because the new methods took up
less time, and labour was its own virtue.
Then again, all cultures and generations within them
have some strange ideas about work. I had a older colleague who
railed against the cruelty and crimes against humanity
it was when he was detained even a minute from leaving
work at the end of a normal working day. Then I learned
that he did not have anything to do, he just drove as
fast as he could back home, sat in a chair feeling a
bit depressed and literally watched the paint peel off
the walls. :-)
Pete McCutchen
It's true that America is generally more accepting of open religiosity
than secular Europe, and it's also true that we're much better at
assimilation than most European countries. However, we've had our own
problems with militant Muslims who become enamored of a dangerous
strain of political Islam. We had an incident where a Muslim member
of the military attacked his fellow soldiers; we've had disloyalty
among translators and Muslim clerics in the military. John Muhammad
appears to have been motivated in large part by his Muslim faith --
which the media, of course, is trying to downplay. We had this group
in Portland.
I think you're committing an error which I hereby dub "Saidism," after
the late Edward Said, the author of _Orientalism_. You seem to be
assuming that, in every conflict between Muslims and the West, it's
the West that's at fault. Do some European policies make Muslims more
likely to become attracted to Jihadist ideology? Well, sure, but not
the ones you're thinking of. A generalized unwillingness to criticize
Muslims or brook criticisms of them, a non-assimilationist policy in
dealing with immigrants, and a generous welfare state which helps to
subsidize an oppositional culture all contribute to the problem.
But one major factor, which you seem to be ignoring, is Muslim and
specifically Arab Muslim culture. Which, to a great extent, is simply
not compatible with a modern, free, pluralistic society.
--
Pete McCutchen
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <bplij9$5ic$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> "Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Maybe - but probably not. The population of Europe has often been
> > seriously
> > > > culled and grown back. As the continent is over populated at the
moment
> > the
> > > > only issue is ensuring that you can increase productivity per worker
to
> > keep
> > > > up with it.
> > >
> > > Often? The plague dropped European population by perhaps as much as
40%,
> > > and there was a much slower decline from about 300 A.D. to 600 A.D.
What
> > > other incidents were you thinking of?
> >
> > There were several plague incidents which were responsible for
respectable
> > percentage decreases in total and local populations. The population of
> > London is a good example.
>
> Your statement was about Europe. I can well believe that particular
> places had drops more often. Unfortunately my historical atlas of
> population is still hiding, so I can't check on whether the graph for
> Europe as a whole has any substantial drops after the initial late 15th
> to early 16th c. one.
Well, in this context, those "local" drops would have also had significant
impacts on Europe as a whole.
> > > And in what sense is the continent overpopulated? Standards of living
> > > are high by world or historical standards and I don't think death
rates
> > > from pollution are rising although I could be wrong.
> >
> > I am thinking of housing availability and standards of living for
families
> > compared to other coutries, or even, for that, matter compared to when I
was
> > a kid.
>
> Housing availability has little to do with overpopulation, unless you
> have literally run out of places to put houses, which doesn't fit my
> memory of travelling in Europe--not even close.
What parts of Europe.
Sure, there's plenty of room in Scotland for houses, but what can you do
with them unless there's an economic reason to be there?
Perhaps we need to discuss the impact of economics on this. Certainly in
the SOuth East of England, where the majority live, they are starting to
have to try and build on brownfield sites with varying degrees of success.
And I think standards of
> living in Europe are higher than in most of the world and most of
> history. So I still don't see in what sense it is overpopulated.
You can't afford to live in many places.
That impacts across the board.
> > Population pressure can manifest itself in a lot of ways. Housing costs
are
> > frightening in the UK now, if you have a small appartment and want kids,
you
> > might have a serious problem, or consider moving huge distances to
afford
> > somewhere to live.
> >
> > Likewise, if you live in a major city, you'll have to consider other
> > factors. Schools had sports facilities when I was kid, most of them,
> > especially in city or twon centre schools have been sold off.
>
> I doubt that has much to do with overall population density. There is
> still a lot of empty space in the U.K.--it just isn't where people
> choose to live.
Choose or Can.
There is a difference.
I could by a house in Burnley for next to nothing, but as I can't work in
Burnley or anywhere remotely near by it would be rather pointless.
I have to live in the South of England.
Consider Australia, which is practically empty--but a
> lot of the population is in urban areas.
My experience of the urban areas of Sydney is they are much much more spread
out than those a similar distance from London.
I think that the comparison isn't necessarily valid.
Although The Economist did carry an opinion piece recently stating
Australian is at capacity.
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <bpli6k$4nq$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> "Dave" <da...@atomicrazor.spamoff.com> wrote:
>
> > > Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
> > > willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
> > > size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate
Illinois,
> > > or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
> > > planning to move there.
> >
Chicago
> > could move to a nice suburb with large houses, gardens and a suburbian
child
> > friendly enviroment more easily than a similar couple living in London
> > could. You have to travel a long way out to get the garden etc...
>
> Depends where you live in the U.S. I think average real income is higher
> here, and I suspect that land use controls, although pretty bad, are not
> as extreme as in the U.K. As I understand it, U.K. policy for quite a
> while has used "greenbelts" to force high density in urban areas--a
> policy described by those who like it as "preventing urban sprawl." You
> are describing its success.
And its limitations.
> > Plus, when you do get to the sub-urbs, certainly in the UK, the size of
> > available plots and general living conditions is pretty tight compared
to
> > the US.
> >
> > As an example; we had USian friends over to visit. We had a large by UK
> > standards end of terrace house, the kids of the couple ran into next
door's
> > garden (they were at the time living in a suburb of Washington DC) - I
> > shouted at them and they genuinely hadn't realised that the area in
front of
> > the building next door wasn't actually our house too, because they
hadn't
> > seen houses that close together.
>
> On the other hand, in lots of urban areas in the U.S. you have a solid
> block of houses with no space between.
I was specifically talking about Suburbs such as the one I grew up in in
Hertfordshire.
While there were many large detached houses, most of the housing is
terraced.
> > Bear in mind that this is in a pretty green area of Hertfordshire.
> >
> > The living patterns in my experience, are very different in the US and
much
> > more kid friendly.
>
> Could well be. The question is how much of that is associated with
> population density.
And your alternative hypothesis would be?
@nospamatomicrazor.com Dave O'Neill
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <flhsrv00rfatvi75u...@4ax.com>,
> David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >Most humans don't live in the wide empty spaces--that's why they are
> > >empty. You seem to be suggesting that a couple in Chicago will be more
> > >willing to have children tahn a couple in a European city of similar
> > >size due to the existence of lots of empty space in downstate Illinois,
> > >or Montana, or Alaska. But why is that relevant to them? They aren't
> > >planning to move there.
> >
> > overpopulation and a lot to do with increasing levels of education and
> > independence among women. Wherever women have the option of careers
> >
>
> Certainly not true at the individual level. My mother had that option
> and had babies. My wife had that option and had babies.
My wife has the option and has the career.
My sister had the career but now finds it hard to have babies in her 40's.
I suspect there has been a lot of that.
Dave
David Friedman
"Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> > > The living patterns in my experience, are very different in the US and
> much
> > > more kid friendly.
> >
> > Could well be. The question is how much of that is associated with
> > population density.
>
> And your alternative hypothesis would be?
Real income. Land use regulation.
My impression, from driving in England, is that residential housing
occupies a fairly small fraction of the land area, even though much
larger than in the U.S. So it isn't a matter of "dense housing because
there is no other way of fitting people in."
David Friedman
"Dave O'Neill" <dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com> wrote:
> > Housing availability has little to do with overpopulation, unless you
> > have literally run out of places to put houses, which doesn't fit my
> > memory of travelling in Europe--not even close.
>
> What parts of Europe.
Driving around England about twelve years ago. Taking a train from
England to Vienna, and then driving from there through parts of Austria,
Germany, Holland, and perhaps a few other countries about two and a half
years ago. Travelling around Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. about thirty
years ago.
> Sure, there's plenty of room in Scotland for houses, but what can you do
> with them unless there's an economic reason to be there?
If there were more people, there would be reasons to be there.
> Perhaps we need to discuss the impact of economics on this. Certainly in
> the SOuth East of England, where the majority live, they are starting to
> have to try and build on brownfield sites with varying degrees of success.
I don't know what brownfield sites are, but looking through my handy
Ordinance Survey Atlas, the yellow patches representing dense housing
are a tiny fraction of the total area, in the south as elsewhere.
> And I think standards of
> > living in Europe are higher than in most of the world and most of
> > history. So I still don't see in what sense it is overpopulated.
> You can't afford to live in many places.
What does that mean? If people are living there, then they can afford to
live there--unless you mean that all inhabitants are in the process of
spending down savings and will soon be bankrupt.
The only sense I can make out of that sort of statement is "real
incomes are lower than I wish they were," which is true of all times and
places.
...
> > I doubt that has much to do with overall population density. There is
> > still a lot of empty space in the U.K.--it just isn't where people
> > choose to live.
> Choose or Can.
Both.
> There is a difference.
>
> I could by a house in Burnley for next to nothing, but as I can't work in
> Burnley or anywhere remotely near by it would be rather pointless.
>
> I have to live in the South of England.
But the reasons why the South of England is where there are jobs
ultimately comes down to there being people there. If the population
were half as large, some of the areas you now "can" live would become
places where you "couldn't" live. What you are observing is not an
effect of overpopulation but an effect of the advantages, for many but
not all purposes, of dense populations--reflected in the fact that you
can't do the things you want to do in Burnley.
David Friedman
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Still, just because their have been false alarms in the past doesn't
> mean that the alarm now is wrong. Assimilating Muslims doesn't appear
> to be particularly easy. Even in the US, which is far, far better at
> assimilating immigrants than any European country with the possible
> exception of England, there are some problems.
One interesting question is whether the overall changes in western
societies over the past century or two have made assimilation easier or
harder. One could argue that the rise of the welfare state makes it
harder. In the old days, the immigrants had to find a productive niche
in the existing society--and for many of them, or at least their
children, that meant learning the language and adopting a good deal of
the culture. None of that is necessary if all you want to do is live on
welfare--and for some migrants, that might be better than conditions
back home.
On the other hand, even under modern conditions, lots of immigrant
groups in the U.S. (I don't know about Muslims in particular) seem to be
following the traditional path.
David Friedman
David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Not necessarily so, I think feminism was equally succesful in
> >America and in Europe but American women are more willing to have
> >children. In fact, three weeks ago, the NY TImes magazine had a
> >fascinating article on very well educated women selecting babies over
> >careers.
>
> You're incorrect; see my other post for a cite from the CDC.
> Educated American women have birthrates in line with Europe at around
> 1.7 lifetime fertility.
You are saying that educated American women, who have a lower birthrate
than the American average, have a fertility comparable to the average
for the more fertile of the western European states--I think someone
gave a figure around 1.2 for some of the less fertile states. That isn't
inconsistent with the claim you are disputing.
Suppose, to simplify a lot, that half the women in America and half the
women in western Europe, are by some definition educated. We could have
figures such as:
American educated: 1.7
American not educated: 2.1
Average : 1.9
European educated: 1.5
European not educated: 1.9
Average: 1.7
That is consistent with "American women are more willing to have
children," for both the educated and the uneducated.
David T. Bilek
>
>Suppose, to simplify a lot, that half the women in America and half the
>women in western Europe, are by some definition educated.
I believe the CDC used "college graduate or equivalent".
>We could have figures such as:
>
>American educated: 1.7
>American not educated: 2.1
>Average : 1.9
>
>European educated: 1.5
>European not educated: 1.9
>Average: 1.7
>
>That is consistent with "American women are more willing to have
>children," for both the educated and the uneducated.
This is assuming that the same proportion of women in the US graduate
from college as in Western Europe. I rather doubt this but I admit I
do not have numbers to back up my impression. The primary reason for
the higher American fertility rate is the large number of Hispanic
immigrants. Immigrants from Mexico and South America tend to be less
educated and have higher fertility than the average.
But you are right, there is at least one cultural difference:
Hispanic women have a significantly higher lifetime fertility than
other women even after controlling for education. But this higher
rate is still much lower than historical rates,
I meant to ask in another post: Do you have an alternative hypothesis
to explain declining fertility besides increased career and
educational opportunities for women?
-David
Robert Sneddon
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> writes
>
>My impression, from driving in England, is that residential housing
>occupies a fairly small fraction of the land area, even though much
>larger than in the U.S. So it isn't a matter of "dense housing because
>there is no other way of fitting people in."
The cost of a plot of land to build a house on is the critical factor.
A quarter-acre of land in a desireable suburb of London will cost
perhaps 500 thousand quid (about 750,000 dollars), maybe more. The house
you build on that will be brick and mortar, more expensive than
American-standard balloon-frame 2x4. Cost it at another 100,000 quid for
a four-bedroom two-storey two-car-garage house (about 2000 sq. ft by
American standard measurements) including sewerage and electricity
supply hookups. That means the house costs 900,000 dollars as it stands,
and it doesn't get cheaper second-hand.
If instead a developer buys an acre of land for about 2 million dollars
and builds 15 high-density homes on that plot he can sell them for
400,000 dollars each and make a really good profit. This is the way they
go, in the main.
My experience driving around the outskirts of Atlanta GA was that a
half-acre sited-house with five beds, three baths and a three-car garage
could be had in a nice area for about 300,000 dollars and the home owner
is within an hour's commute of central Atlanta. For the same sort of
property within an hour's commute of central London you could just about
stick another nought on the end of that price.
A larger proportion of England's available land area is assigned to
housing than in America. The highest-density areas of housing in America
equal England's highest-density areas but the low-density housing in the
States is vastly cheaper and much more common than England because of
the population pressures.
BTW brownfield sites are places like old industrial works such as iron
and steelworks which are no longer used. After reclamation and
detoxification of the soil they are being rezoned as residential areas
open for housebuilding and development.
--
Email me via nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
David T. Bilek
>In article <ddfr-9A4319.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net>, David
>Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedmanNOSPAM.com.invalid> writes
>>
>>My impression, from driving in England, is that residential housing
>>occupies a fairly small fraction of the land area, even though much
>>larger than in the U.S. So it isn't a matter of "dense housing because
>>there is no other way of fitting people in."
>
> The cost of a plot of land to build a house on is the critical factor.
>A quarter-acre of land in a desireable suburb of London will cost
>perhaps 500 thousand quid (about 750,000 dollars), maybe more. The house
>you build on that will be brick and mortar, more expensive than
>American-standard balloon-frame 2x4. Cost it at another 100,000 quid for
>a four-bedroom two-storey two-car-garage house (about 2000 sq. ft by
>American standard measurements) including sewerage and electricity
>supply hookups. That means the house costs 900,000 dollars as it stands,
>and it doesn't get cheaper second-hand.
>
...
> My experience driving around the outskirts of Atlanta GA was that a
>half-acre sited-house with five beds, three baths and a three-car garage
>could be had in a nice area for about 300,000 dollars and the home owner
>is within an hour's commute of central Atlanta. For the same sort of
>property within an hour's commute of central London you could just about
>stick another nought on the end of that price.
>
How is this a fair comparison? You compared the most expensive city
in England to a relatively cheap area of the USA. Compare to
Manhattan, San Francisco, Los Angeles, or the like and you'll get very
different results.
-David
David Friedman
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> BTW brownfield sites are places like old industrial works such as iron
> and steelworks which are no longer used. After reclamation and
> detoxification of the soil they are being rezoned as residential areas
> open for housebuilding and development.
Thanks.
So the constraint is not how much land there is but how much land is
zoned residential--which fits into my earlier point about land use
regulation as one possible explanation.
David Friedman
David T. Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I meant to ask in another post: Do you have an alternative hypothesis
> to explain declining fertility besides increased career and
> educational opportunities for women?
Several.
I think the long term decline in fertility in part reflects the long
term decline in infant mortality. Lots of people want to end up with
about two children, and can get that result now by producing two. That
doesn't explain the more recent decline in population growth rates, but
it does explain the earlier decline in birth rates.
One consequence of the drop in infant mortality, along with increasing
division of labor shifting a lot of what used to be household producing
a few hundred year back into the market, is that being a housewife is no
longer a full time profession save for women who want a lot of children.
With women less specialized to being the wife of a particular man, the
advantages of lifetime marriage decline, which leads to an easing of
divorce law. Easy divorce, however, makes childbearing less attractive.
Arguably, good contraception and readily available abortion reduce the
ability of women who want to have children to get men to marry them and
support the children. In essence, sex and childbearing used to be joint
products and no longer are--giving men a much greater opportunity than
in the past to get the former without committing to paying the cost of
the latter. That makes childbearing less attractive.
Seen from a somewhat different angle, good contraception means that
individuals, both men and women, can have sex without producing
children, so those who in the past would have produced children only
because it was a side effect of sex mostly don't.
Another explanation is that children used to be important as a form of
old age insurance. We now have much greater availability of both state
provided and private pension and savings arrangement, and much less
control by parents over children, so that reason is much weaker.
Note that, with all these arguments, the greater career opportunities
for women are effect rather than cause. It used to be that one
profession--wife and mother--absorbed nearly half the labor force, so
naturally the half of the population capable of that profession was
heavily specialized to it. That's no longer true so, with some lag for
changing norms, institutions, and the like, a considerable part of the
female population has now shifted into other professions.
Is that enough alternatives?
Lee Ratner
mean that feminism was less succesful jus that there are less educated
women in America than Europe.
Lee Ratner
> specifically Arab Muslim culture. Which, to a great extent, is simply
> not compatible with a modern, free, pluralistic society.
Pete, several points. A. I despise and loathe Edward Said. I don't
think that every conflict between the West and Islam is the fault of
the West. In fact, most of the current conflict is the fault of the
Muslims. After all, they committed terrorist atrocities that got the
ball rolling. B. I am very critical of Islam at times, check out my
posts on Israel threads. I've been called a racist for criticism of
Islam before. C. How is Islamic culture in general and Arab Islamic
culture in particular incompatible with modern, free, pluralistic
society? Now things like honor killings are incompatible but honor
killings originated with the pagan Arabs. What should we do to make
sure that Muslims assimilate properly?
Randolph Fritz
>
> Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
> that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
> cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
> so.
>
You're working off incorrect numbers, to judge by the *CIA World
Factbook*; as of 2000 CE Italy and Spain were just about at
replacement. I suspect you've discovered some scare literature.
Randolph
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#People
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#People
I am wryly amused to note that the CIA World Factbook site now looks
remarkably like a military strategy game manual.
Ken Walton
what hte statistics are, but I know it's pretty worrying; whether it's
bad enough yet to affect the birth rate, maybe someone else can answer.
--
Ken Walton
====================================================================
Free Open Source Software
Mozilla Web Browser/Email Client http:\\www.mozilla.org
OpenOffice 1.1 MSWord-beating office suite http:\\www.OpenOffice.org
====================================================================
David T. Bilek
>In article <hbgqrvol8l2jpfc6n...@4ax.com>, David T Bilek wrote:
>>
>> Spain and Italy appear to be commiting suicide as nations, and not all
>> that slowly. Unless something drastic happens they will probably
>> cease to exist as recognizably Italy and Spain in only a century or
>> so.
>>
>
>You're working off incorrect numbers, to judge by the *CIA World
>Factbook*; as of 2000 CE Italy and Spain were just about at
>replacement. I suspect you've discovered some scare literature.
>
>Randolph
>
>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/it.html#People
>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sp.html#People
>
Huh? Scare literature? I know how to read statistics with a critical
eye! Both countries' fertility rates are given on those very pages as
1.26 while replacement is roughly 2.1.
Where do you get the fertility rates being at replacement levels? Are
you mistakenly looking at population growth rates maybe?
-David
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:46:23 -0800, "Niall McAuley"
><gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Or are you talking about Muslim cooties?
>
>Your friends the French are starting to see those Muslim cooties.
Are the French special friends of Niall? Or of Ireland? (I know they used
to like to mess around in Scottish/English politics - Mary Queen of Scots
was pretty much raised and sponsored at the French court - but don't know
what the Irish-French history is.) Or are you using the "your friends the
French" trope to attempt to suggest that Niall is anti-American by
associating him with the French? (If you happen to have some information that
they _are_ friends of his, I'll withdraw the question.)
[snippage]
>
>Still, just because their have been false alarms in the past doesn't
>mean that the alarm now is wrong. Assimilating Muslims doesn't appear
>to be particularly easy. Even in the US, which is far, far better at
>assimilating immigrants than any European country with the possible
>exception of England, there are some problems. Most American Muslims
>are loyal, or at least not actively disloyal, but we've certainly had
>a few Muslims who decided they'd rather play for the other team.
And a few Jews. And some Germans. And some Chinese. And WASPs like Aldrich
Ames. So I'm not sure that particular piece of your argument has much
persuasive power.
-- Alan
--
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA 94025
===============================================================================
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>In article <2fkvrvocqcv0sltlm...@4ax.com>,
>> to explain declining fertility besides increased career and
>> educational opportunities for women?
>
[snippage of alternative possibilities]
>Is that enough alternatives?
Well, there's also declining sperm counts in Western men (or has that been
debunked? I haven't kept abreast of this).
The availability of drugs like Viagra and Levitra which allow older,
presumably less-fertile men to use some of the sexual opportunities with
fertile women which might otherwise have gone to fertile younger men with a
higher likelihood of conception. (That doesn't sound like it'd be a big
factor.)
Popularity of tighty-whitey underwear resulting in higher pelvic
temperature and lowered sperm motility.
Fertile men spending more time and attention on video games and not
having as much sex as they used to.
All I can think of at the moment.
Ken Walton
> I think I must step in here to moderate between two factions. Mark
> Atwood is overstating the dangers of the Muslim population of Europe
> increasing. However, many Muslim youth and adults are attracted to the
> more dangerous forms of Islam. The Europeans can counter this by not
> being so upset about Muslim religiosity and doing stupid things like
> forbiding Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarves in school
> and work. The Muslim Europeans are attracted to the more dangerous
> forms of Islam because the Europeans are only giving them to choices,
> complete secularist assimilation or complete separation and
> alienation. In America, we do not have this problem because we are
> more open to Muslim religiosity.
There's an interesting dichotomy here between Germany and England. In
Germany recently, a Muslim teacher was banned from wearing a headscarf
to school, and had to argue in court that it was a "fashion accessory",
because the law says that religious symbols are not allowed to be worn
by teachers. She won her case, but several German states are planning to
make the Muslim headscarf an official religious symbol.
At the same time, a teacher in England banned several schoolgirls from
school for wearing headscarves, and was taken to court for religious
prejudice. Mind you, several other Muslim girls at the same school
argued that they shouldn't have to wear scarves at school, because
school should be more like being at home, rather than being in public.
Here in Göttingen, for some historical reason, there are a lot of
"Muslims", mostly Iranians. Many of them are refugees from Iran, some of
them Zoroastrian (there are a lot of Zoroastrians in Yazd, who have no
time at all for Islam.)
It was my birthday party this evening, and there were three "Muslims"
here; one was from Iran, and his attitude was "well, I'm officially a
Muslim, but I don't do anything about it." The other two were a couple,
who were Muslims to the extent of not drinking alcohol at Ramadam; he
was a Kurd from the Syrian side of Kurdistan; his wife was from the
Iraqi side. She was quite definitely not wearing a headscarf; I would
have taken her for a Turkish "guest worker" if I hadn't been told
different. It's really not so easy to put "Muslims" into pigeonholes.
Ken Walton
> I don't know what brownfield sites are, but looking through my handy
> Ordinance Survey Atlas, the yellow patches representing dense housing
> are a tiny fraction of the total area, in the south as elsewhere.
Your're maybe not noticing the fact that most of the "empty" land in
Europe is *not* wilderness, but cultivated land of one sort or another.
Ken Walton
> I am wryly amused to note that the CIA World Factbook site now looks
> remarkably like a military strategy game manual.
Yes, I was ashamed to use it in my role-playing game because it looked
too much like a handout I might have knocked up in a few minutes to look
cool and official.
Robert Sneddon
<ken.w...@freenet.de> writes
>
>There's an interesting dichotomy here between Germany and England. In
>Germany recently, a Muslim teacher was banned from wearing a headscarf
>to school, and had to argue in court that it was a "fashion accessory",
>because the law says that religious symbols are not allowed to be worn
>by teachers. She won her case, but several German states are planning to
>make the Muslim headscarf an official religious symbol.
What's the school's position with yarmulkes? Are they regarded as
religious symbols in Germany?
Philip Chee
> It was my birthday party this evening, and there were three "Muslims"
> here; one was from Iran, and his attitude was "well, I'm officially a
> Muslim, but I don't do anything about it." The other two were a couple,
> who were Muslims to the extent of not drinking alcohol at Ramadam; he
> was a Kurd from the Syrian side of Kurdistan; his wife was from the
> Iraqi side. She was quite definitely not wearing a headscarf; I would
> have taken her for a Turkish "guest worker" if I hadn't been told
> different. It's really not so easy to put "Muslims" into pigeonholes.
We used to have a muslim HR secretary who was a big hefty woman.
She said if ever her husband tried to force her to wear a headscarf
she would bash him on the head with her rolling pin until he changed
his mind.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Ken Walton
>
> What's the school's position with yarmulkes? Are they regarded as
> religious symbols in Germany?
have gone to bed, I'll have to get back to you on that one. It's a good
question, though. I do know that the swastika is very illegal (never
mind that it's a sacred Indian symbol) and that a man was recently
arrested for teaching his dog to raise it's front paw when he said "Heil
Hitler."
Eveleen McAuley
"David T. Bilek" <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote
> Huh? Scare literature? I know how to read statistics with a critical
> eye! Both countries' fertility rates are given on those very pages as
> 1.26 while replacement is roughly 2.1.
>
> Where do you get the fertility rates being at replacement levels? Are
> you mistakenly looking at population growth rates maybe?
>
One thing you have to allow for here is that the calculation of fertility
rates is fairly complicated. You have to predict the lifetime fertility of
the younger age-groups by a comparison with the present fertility of older
age-groups. In a transition period when patterns are changing, this can
give misleading results.
Suppose that the present 35-45 -year-old women have no children this year,
because they all had 2 children each in their twenties. Suppose that the
present 20-30-year olds have no children this year, because they've all
decided to put it off till later. You could calculate a 'catastrophic'
fertility rate from this now, yet still end up with an average of two
children per woman.
Eveleen McAuley