Mark Steyn and Western vs. Muslim Demographics

I'm beginning to wonder why Mark Steyn thinks Islam is so powerful compared to the West. This is not, by any means, to excuse the very real danger posed by radical Islamism, but Steyn, whose war-on terror commentary has otherwise been quite astute, continues to predict an Islamic takeover of the world based on demographic analyses that just don't gel with reality.

In his latest fearmongering piece, for example (coming on the heels of a Wall Street Journal essay, the merits of which I debated on this site), Steyn asserts that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same. Steyn also calls Muslims the fastest-breeding demographic group on the planet and predicts that Europe will be doomed within a few short generations.

This all sounds extremely alarming, but the problem (or should I say the welcome news) is - it's just not true. When properly viewed within a broader context, Steyn's worries prove almost entirely unfounded.

Britain did indeed carve out a mighty empire in the 1800s, but claiming its youth bulge as the primary cause is, at best, highly debatable. The empire began long before the 1820s population explosion, and other European nations with smaller populations and higher infant mortalities also conquered many other lands.

But even if population was the key factor (and to be fair, it did contribute somewhat of a share), there is no guarantee Yemen or any other Muslim country could replicate the U.K.'s success. In addition to manpower, dominant empire-spreading requires highly developed internal structures such as a stable government, well-functioning economy, and strong military. In the 1800s, only European states had developed these, and as such, transoceanic colonialism remained a European phenomenon.

On the other hand, the Muslim nations Steyn mentions have shown little inclinations of creating such structures, and indeed even the most populous Muslim states (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Egypt, half of Nigeria) have been far more preoccupied with solving internal problems than on spreading their populations around the world. Yemen most certainly won't conquer the world like England did.

At the same time, not only are Muslims not the world's fastest-growing population (that distinction belongs to mostly non-Muslim sub-Saharan Africa), but as I have argued in the past, their propensity towards radicalism provides them little opportunity to throw off their current malaise, much less dominate the planet.

I don't know if Steyn truly believes what he writes; perhaps he deliberately exaggerates Muslim demographic prowess in order to scare Westerners into action. But while unassimilated Muslim populations certainly do pose many serious threats to the West (and it doesn't take large numbers either, as the Danish cartoon riots have shown), a population-based takeover isn't one of them.

Comments

[Verdant]

Hi Solid Surfer,

You may be correct, moreover, your salient point regarding the number of problem residents needed to transfix a democracy is very important. The Muslim population growth is more worrisome than others because it is: a) already present in the west, b) growing at a larger rate in industrialized Europe than is the native European portion of the population, c) more youthful and impressionable than is the older reformed Christian population, d) refusing to integrate or assimilate, and, e) reacting to events as if it has a huge chip on its shoulder....i.e. it is constantly demanding respect and visualizing disrespect. This kind of culture is immature, and therefore is susceptibile to making choices that are wildly self defeating, all in the name of revenge against the culture that is viewed as the disrespecting entity. These ingredients often produce alarming fulminations in democratic societies, which provide the oxygen (freedom) that catalyzes such eruptions.

[Solid Surfer]

I see Muslim population growth in Europe as a related but actually separate issue than low native European growth. Certainly they are related because low native growth is what prompted them to admit the Muslims in the first place, but today the problems have become separate and twofold.

First, Europe's problems with native growth are big trouble for its sluggish economies and welfare states. These are already under serious strain, and the more the workforce diminishes compared with elderly people, the more unsustainable the system will become until it reaches a breaking point.

The Muslims, meanwhile, are as I see it a separate issue. The current Muslim population has been causing problems, and this would likely be the case regardless of how large Europe's native population is. There could be twice as many native Europeans, for example, but I doubt that'd stop the current Muslim group from acting up. As I wrote in the piece, I don't see Muslims overwhelming Europe demographically, but they certainly are causing some serious problems with their numbers right now. Regardless of how many native Europeans are out there, Europe will only be able to solve the problems of Muslim extremism by cracking down on the radicals right here and now.

[tommpowe]

I think that Steyn is trying to make the point that in the next two decades, the number of muslim adolescents will continue to rise, as will the the target audience for radical clerics who to try to recruit suicide bombers.
I have also read articles by Steyn that imply that by the year 2100, the majority of citizens of the EU will be muslim, and their democratically elected governments will become religous radical muslim states. (think Palestine with Hamas or Pakistan should Musharraf leave power)

[Solid Surfer]

Hi Tommpowe,
Thanks for the comment. I totally understand your concerns, but the numbers show that Steyn's predictions are off. He doesn't mention it, but most Muslim countries have declining population growth to the point where they have reached subreplacement fertility. This will actually produce a decline in Muslim adolescents over the next 20 years, as compared to today.

Similarly, his predictions for 2100 are based on the assumption that current immigration and fertility levels for all groups will remain exactly the same for the next 94 years. Of course this is theoretically possible, but I wouldn't bet a cent on it, because in all nations throughout history, there has never been a single 94-year period (or even a 5- or 10-year period) where these levels haven't fluctuated (and in many cases dramatically).

Europe may seem soft on Muslims now, but even with everything we've seen on the news lately, Muslims really don't have that much power at the moment. If they start to get it, Europeans will likely become much tougher on them; I can't see any of the EU nations simply allowing Muslims to passively take them over and force them into a theocratic state.

[EasyLiving1]

Your writing is sloppy. Steyn did not "assert that because Britain conquered the world in the 1800s due to a rapidly rising youth population, Muslim countries like Yemen, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia will do the same." He raised the issue and gave evidence for it.

Before attacking a man of Steyn's stature, get your mind cleared of THC (you can give any excess to me if you like to prevent future lapses of logic) and remember one thing: WORDS HAVE MEANINGS!

[Solid Surfer]

Apparently you didn't read Steyn's article (or my piece) very carefully. Directly from his piece, Steyn says:

"Little Yemen, like little Britain 200 years ago, will send its surplus youth around the world - one way or another."

That's about as direct as an assertion can get.

[K T Cat]

Hi! I think I agree with you to some extent. Lots of people don't mean lots of trouble if they don't have any money at all. I did a little analysis taking the opposite tact: where are things going well? I blogged about it here.

http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2006/03/mi-nombre-es-k-t-gato.html

[Rich]

It is obvious that you are missing the point, especially in reference to Europe. Because the indigenous European birth rate is so low, combined with the fact that Europeans rely so heavily on government subsidies, there is no other alternative for Europe other than to continue allowing more immigration, which will continue to be by Muslims. The only other option is for Europe to begin attracting immigrants from Latin America, which is not likely to happen.

The Europeans have put themselves in a precarious situation. They rely so much the government and have become lazy. They have no incentive to procreate. What you do not seem to understand is that the Muslim population in Europe doesn't need to necessarily explode to take over. We know for a fact that the indigenous European population is in position to cut its numbers in half over the next generation, and that pattern is likely to stay in tact for at least two to three generations.

This will further reduce the economic output of all European countries. At the same time, the Muslim population is set to double or possibly triple in the next generation, and that too will almost certainly continue for two or three generations.

What you will have is a Europe that actually has an overall decreased population, but one where Muslims are the majority. While Muslims in Europe currently do not use their numbers wisely in order to attain political clout, this too will change dramatically as they become the majority. As we already know, countries that are predominantly Muslim do not permit the most basic freedoms that the Western World is used to and has fought for over the last couple of centuries. Even in countries where there is a fairly even split between Muslims and non-Muslims, Muslim radicals push for their radical ideas and create havoc among all of society. This is Europe's future, unless drastic changes are made now. The problem is that Europeans do not seem to care about their future. Their only concern is for today.

There is one other major problem with Muslim expanionism. There is not one Muslim country in the world today that produces anything of value other than oil. The majority of these countries have staggering unemployment. Even in the oil producing countries, the economies are in terrible shape, outside of a couple of exceptions such as Kuwait and the UAE. What will happen once the oil runs out? Muslim thinking does not provoke an ideology of bettering the lives of its people in the here and now. It is all about getting past this life and onto the next where things will be much better. There is no driving force that strives for excellence in the here and now. This is the greatest danger that Islam poses to civilized society. Not only will Europe be turned over to the Muslims in quick order, but what will remain will become much like the rest of the Muslim world, a very poor Europe.

If we are not intelligent enough to see this, the potential is there for this to happen in other parts of the world, including here in the US. The changes that have taken place in Europe have all taken hold over the last thirty years. That is not a long period of time. We can only imagine how much things will change over the next sixty years.

[Solid Surfer]

No, I don't think I'm missing the point. Europe is by no means obligated to continue bringing in Muslims to immigrate. The continent's population decline is really a separate issue and does not in itself endanger Europe's existence in the short term. Japan, for example, also has a declining population, but no one considers it endangered as a nation because it has virtually no Muslim immigrants. If Europe were to halt all Muslim immigration, its declining native growth would of course still be economically problematic, but it wouldn't in itself become an existential threat (assuming, of course, that it doesn't go on forever to the point of Europe having zero people, which is a totally different issue and most certainly won't occur).

You also say: "What you do not seem to understand is that the Muslim population in Europe doesn't need to necessarily explode to take over. We know for a fact that the indigenous European population is in position to cut its numbers in half over the next generation, and that pattern is likely to stay in tact for at least two to three generations."

This is not necessarily true. At current European birthrates, the continent will lose about 1/7 of its population by 2050. This is far from losing half its people. Also, there is no way to know if the pattern will or won't change over 2 to 3 generations. Look over the past few generations in almost every country on earth. Birthrates have gone up and down, often wildly. The one thing they haven't done anywhere is stay still. If anything, European birthrates will not stay the way they are. Demographics is often a very inaccurate science when trying to predict more than about 10 years into the future.

You also say: "the Muslim population is set to double or possibly triple in the next generation, and that too will almost certainly continue for two or three generations."

Once again, this is by no means certain whatsoever. The Muslim population will increase if Europe lets Muslims in, and Europe has the choice of whether to do so or not.

You say: "What you will have is a Europe that actually has an overall decreased population, but one where Muslims are the majority."

Again, this isn't actually true. Right now, native Europeans comprise 95% of Europe's population. Muslims are very unlikely to become the majority over the next 100 years, even if current birth and immigration rates stay the same (which they almost certainly won't).

That all said, however, I fully agree with you that Muslims don't need to be present in large numbers to be a serious threat to Europe. This, as I see it, is by far Europe's most serious existential problem at the moment, not birthrates themselves. And Europeans themselves hold the solution - they can choose to stop Muslim immigration and deport any Muslim residents who are actively trying to get sharia law to replace their countries' laws. This would quickly rid Europe of the Muslims trying to take it over.

Will they actually do it? I think eventually they will have no choice.

[New Balance Shoes]

I love mental Labour and physical labor, perhaps even said, I love manual labor. When in the physical labor in any good understanding, combined together in the hands and brain, I feel more special.