Debunking Muslim takeovers by birthrate

It is widely said that the high birthrates of Muslim immigrants will eventually give them majority status in Europe.  Not going to happen, according to researchers.  Actually, the Muslim birthrate throughout the world is declining, though not as much right now as with native Europeans.  But the growth of the Islamic population in Europe will be too small to make much of a difference:

Senior researcher Brian Grim said: “Across the next 20 years, we’re only seeing a 2 percent rise in the total share of Europe that is Muslim. We’re projecting that the growth rate is slowing. So this rise is very very modest. It’s a relatively small share of the overall population in Europe… There’s no real scenario that we’ve looked at that this ‘Eurabia’ scenario would come to be.”

Alan Cooperman, associate director for research, said the percentages of Muslims in some European populations would rise from 3 to 5 percent to between 6 and 10 percent by 2030. “Those are substantial increases but they are very far from the ‘Eurabia’ scenario of runaway growth,” he said. “We do not see either wordlwide or in Europe runaway growth. The growth rates are slowing.”

via Will Pew Muslim birth rate study finally silence the “Eurabia” claim? | Analysis & Opinion |.

"And you claim to be a Lutheran despite disagreeing with parts of the Lutheran confession. ..."

Is the Atonement “Cosmic Child Abuse”?
"Christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman, not between members of the ..."

Religious Objections to Gay Marriage “Are ..."
"Setapart: Most of these are simply supporting substitutionary atonement, without the penal element. Gelasius of ..."

Is the Atonement “Cosmic Child Abuse”?
"I only bring this up because my alarm bells go off as I witness the ..."

Is the Atonement “Cosmic Child Abuse”?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SAL

    This seems to suggest a _purely_ demographic takeover is unlikely. However Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries after Muslims became the nation’s rulers and elites.

  • SAL

    This seems to suggest a _purely_ demographic takeover is unlikely. However Egypt remained majority Christian for centuries after Muslims became the nation’s rulers and elites.

  • sg

    I am skeptical. Since native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century, it seems unlikely that they can stay a majority if the muslims continue to immigrate and just maintain their numbers. What percentage of kindergartners in Europe are muslim? Okay, I haven’t read the study. I will look at it.

  • sg

    I am skeptical. Since native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century, it seems unlikely that they can stay a majority if the muslims continue to immigrate and just maintain their numbers. What percentage of kindergartners in Europe are muslim? Okay, I haven’t read the study. I will look at it.

  • sg

    Okay, I have read it. Talk about not debunking a single thing. Basically the Pew study does what Congress does when it discusses Social Security insolvency. It chooses a date in the very near future, so that it can make the point that it won’t happen over night. Well, that is swell for folks with a really short time horizon like those folks who don’t care what happens one minute after they die. Anyway, the cut off date is 2030. Pew reports many countries’ muslim share of the population will double in the next twenty years. Gee, I wonder what will happen the next twenty years, and the next and the next. The study makes the point that muslims won’t be a majority in one generation. Duh, we knew that.
    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

  • sg

    Okay, I have read it. Talk about not debunking a single thing. Basically the Pew study does what Congress does when it discusses Social Security insolvency. It chooses a date in the very near future, so that it can make the point that it won’t happen over night. Well, that is swell for folks with a really short time horizon like those folks who don’t care what happens one minute after they die. Anyway, the cut off date is 2030. Pew reports many countries’ muslim share of the population will double in the next twenty years. Gee, I wonder what will happen the next twenty years, and the next and the next. The study makes the point that muslims won’t be a majority in one generation. Duh, we knew that.
    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

  • sg

    The second most egregious error is a total lack of discussion of what proportion of the respective populations will be under the age of 18. Consider the difference in the birthrates of secular and orthodox Jews in the United States. Secular Jews have a birthrate below 2.1 which equals decline. Orthodox Jews have a birthrate above 2.1 which equals increase. Now only one in nine Jews is orthodox. However, more than one in four Jews under 18 is orthodox. The obvious implication is that orthodoxy will grow and secular will decline.
    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/

  • sg

    The second most egregious error is a total lack of discussion of what proportion of the respective populations will be under the age of 18. Consider the difference in the birthrates of secular and orthodox Jews in the United States. Secular Jews have a birthrate below 2.1 which equals decline. Orthodox Jews have a birthrate above 2.1 which equals increase. Now only one in nine Jews is orthodox. However, more than one in four Jews under 18 is orthodox. The obvious implication is that orthodoxy will grow and secular will decline.
    http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/

  • sg

    This odd blogger had an interesting take on the rise of fundamentalist islam in Egypt. She posted photos of the graduating classes from Cairo University to document the decline of uh, maybe liberalism, not sure what to call it, and the rise of fundamentalism among the youth based on the dress of the female students pictured. Very interesting.

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/01/am-i-the-only-one-troubled-by-cairo-street-scenes/

    The connection is that the fundamentalists in Egypt increased as a share of the population and in absolute numbers albeit over 50 years rather than just the 20 Pew uses to dismiss claims of the rise of islam in Europe. At the rates cited in the Pew study we can expect Europe in 50 years to resemble Cairo today.

  • sg

    This odd blogger had an interesting take on the rise of fundamentalist islam in Egypt. She posted photos of the graduating classes from Cairo University to document the decline of uh, maybe liberalism, not sure what to call it, and the rise of fundamentalism among the youth based on the dress of the female students pictured. Very interesting.

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/02/01/am-i-the-only-one-troubled-by-cairo-street-scenes/

    The connection is that the fundamentalists in Egypt increased as a share of the population and in absolute numbers albeit over 50 years rather than just the 20 Pew uses to dismiss claims of the rise of islam in Europe. At the rates cited in the Pew study we can expect Europe in 50 years to resemble Cairo today.

  • WebMonk

    sg, whoever gave you the “fact” that the native European birth rate is so low that they’ll lose 75% of their population by the end of the city should be slapped. Insanely false. Whoever originated that “fact” had to be out-and-out lying, not just mistaken or using a “nonstandard” view of the numbers.

    If the country with the smallest birth rate, Germany, continued its rate of decline for another 90 years, they would lose around a third of their population due to the birth/death discrepancy of native Germans. And Germany is by far the lowest; if you take in all the countries of the EU the population would drop by less than 15%.

    And that is “native” Europeans – citizens of the countries, and does not include immigrants.

  • WebMonk

    sg, whoever gave you the “fact” that the native European birth rate is so low that they’ll lose 75% of their population by the end of the city should be slapped. Insanely false. Whoever originated that “fact” had to be out-and-out lying, not just mistaken or using a “nonstandard” view of the numbers.

    If the country with the smallest birth rate, Germany, continued its rate of decline for another 90 years, they would lose around a third of their population due to the birth/death discrepancy of native Germans. And Germany is by far the lowest; if you take in all the countries of the EU the population would drop by less than 15%.

    And that is “native” Europeans – citizens of the countries, and does not include immigrants.

  • sg

    Go run the numbers again, Webmonk.

    A birthrate of 1.5 renders a decline of 75% over 100 years assuming each generation is 20 years. It is even worse if age at birth of first child is 30 instead of 20.

  • sg

    Go run the numbers again, Webmonk.

    A birthrate of 1.5 renders a decline of 75% over 100 years assuming each generation is 20 years. It is even worse if age at birth of first child is 30 instead of 20.

  • sg

    “sg, whoever gave you the “fact” that the native European birth rate is so low that they’ll lose 75% of their population by the end of the city should be slapped.”

    It was my calculator. Shall I slap it?

  • sg

    “sg, whoever gave you the “fact” that the native European birth rate is so low that they’ll lose 75% of their population by the end of the city should be slapped.”

    It was my calculator. Shall I slap it?

  • kerner

    sg:

    One flaw in your analysis is that is assumes human behavioral constants over a period of 100 years. If there’s one thing we know about humans, they change their behavior in unexpected ways.

    For example, maybe one in four jews under 18 is orthodox at this moment, but how do you you know that those same jews will continue to be orthodox 20 years from now?

    I go to my wife’s high school reunions, and I’ll tell you from personal experience that the belief systems of the members of the Milwaukee Lutheran High School class of 1970 has changed for a significant percentage of its members.

    You simply can’t assume constant birth rates for a whole century. The Birth rate in Europe today is not what it was in 1911.

  • kerner

    sg:

    One flaw in your analysis is that is assumes human behavioral constants over a period of 100 years. If there’s one thing we know about humans, they change their behavior in unexpected ways.

    For example, maybe one in four jews under 18 is orthodox at this moment, but how do you you know that those same jews will continue to be orthodox 20 years from now?

    I go to my wife’s high school reunions, and I’ll tell you from personal experience that the belief systems of the members of the Milwaukee Lutheran High School class of 1970 has changed for a significant percentage of its members.

    You simply can’t assume constant birth rates for a whole century. The Birth rate in Europe today is not what it was in 1911.

  • sg

    The Pew study seems to be designed specifically to generate headlines. It leaves out elements necessary to understand population structure and has very carefully selected parameters, so that it can reach its conclusion. Everyone who makes the point that the trajectory of the trends cited will have just the opposite result will be labeled hysterical by the media who can wave this study and its headline. Pew, the media, professors etc., can rest assured virtually no one will actually read the study, get out their calculator and think. The few that do can easily be squelched by ad hominem attacks of whatever popular pejorative they care to use.

  • sg

    The Pew study seems to be designed specifically to generate headlines. It leaves out elements necessary to understand population structure and has very carefully selected parameters, so that it can reach its conclusion. Everyone who makes the point that the trajectory of the trends cited will have just the opposite result will be labeled hysterical by the media who can wave this study and its headline. Pew, the media, professors etc., can rest assured virtually no one will actually read the study, get out their calculator and think. The few that do can easily be squelched by ad hominem attacks of whatever popular pejorative they care to use.

  • sg

    “One flaw in your analysis is that is assumes human behavioral constants over a period of 100 years.”

    Sorry, orthodox birthrates have been high just as all others have fallen over the past hundred years.

    “If there’s one thing we know about humans, they change their behavior in unexpected ways.”

    Actually the proportion of people within groups change. Without birth control, folks who don’t want kids have just as many as those who do. So, technology just allowed folks to do what they wanted and changed the proportion of people who wanted different things. This is called selection. In nature it is called natural selection.

    “You simply can’t assume constant birth rates for a whole century.”

    The trend has been a declining birthrate for the past century. Do you see something in European culture and society that will change that trajectory?

    “The Birth rate in Europe today is not what it was in 1911.”

    Right. Birth control allowed folks who don’t want children to have fewer and fewer. What will change the current trend? Pew doesn’t think anything will. In fact, they seem to be noting the decline in the birthrate among muslims world wide. However, that is an aggregate. Fundamentalists may not drop and only the more progressive liberals and moderates may decrease. Seems plausible.

  • sg

    “One flaw in your analysis is that is assumes human behavioral constants over a period of 100 years.”

    Sorry, orthodox birthrates have been high just as all others have fallen over the past hundred years.

    “If there’s one thing we know about humans, they change their behavior in unexpected ways.”

    Actually the proportion of people within groups change. Without birth control, folks who don’t want kids have just as many as those who do. So, technology just allowed folks to do what they wanted and changed the proportion of people who wanted different things. This is called selection. In nature it is called natural selection.

    “You simply can’t assume constant birth rates for a whole century.”

    The trend has been a declining birthrate for the past century. Do you see something in European culture and society that will change that trajectory?

    “The Birth rate in Europe today is not what it was in 1911.”

    Right. Birth control allowed folks who don’t want children to have fewer and fewer. What will change the current trend? Pew doesn’t think anything will. In fact, they seem to be noting the decline in the birthrate among muslims world wide. However, that is an aggregate. Fundamentalists may not drop and only the more progressive liberals and moderates may decrease. Seems plausible.

  • sg

    “I go to my wife’s high school reunions, and I’ll tell you from personal experience that the belief systems of the members of the Milwaukee Lutheran High School class of 1970 has changed for a significant percentage of its members.”

    This is an interesting idea. Did they really change or did they just manifest in different ways? Did the people who wanted to be cool have all the attitudes and values that were cool then and now to be cool they have the new cool values? How about the folks who sought the truth and believed one thing when they thought it was true, but by their own efforts and research now think something else is true etc.? Certain character traits will manifest differently under different conditions. So, a person whose defining characteristic is say, loyalty, may seem rational because he is loyal to a particular point a view that is in fact rational. However, the same individual will seem irrational when he shows himself to loyal to an irrational ideal. People are complex of course but they generally have some stable characteristics that define them. Over time these manifest themselves such that the person seems to have changed, but really he hasn’t changed.

  • sg

    “I go to my wife’s high school reunions, and I’ll tell you from personal experience that the belief systems of the members of the Milwaukee Lutheran High School class of 1970 has changed for a significant percentage of its members.”

    This is an interesting idea. Did they really change or did they just manifest in different ways? Did the people who wanted to be cool have all the attitudes and values that were cool then and now to be cool they have the new cool values? How about the folks who sought the truth and believed one thing when they thought it was true, but by their own efforts and research now think something else is true etc.? Certain character traits will manifest differently under different conditions. So, a person whose defining characteristic is say, loyalty, may seem rational because he is loyal to a particular point a view that is in fact rational. However, the same individual will seem irrational when he shows himself to loyal to an irrational ideal. People are complex of course but they generally have some stable characteristics that define them. Over time these manifest themselves such that the person seems to have changed, but really he hasn’t changed.

  • WebMonk

    sg, ah, now I see what you did. You conflated two different numbers – the crude birth rate (CBR) and the number of children per mother. The two are completely different numbers.

    The CBR for Germany is 8.2, not 1.5.

    Here’s how you calculate it with the CBR and CDR numbers:
    Subtract the death rate from the birth rate (Germany’s result: -2.5). That means that for every thousand people in Germany the population drops by 2.5 people just due to births/deaths. Multiply that by the total population divided by 1000. Giving you 204,394. Subtract that from the total population and repeat.

    I would suggest making a simple algebraic formula out of that if you want to work it all out. I can’t neatly reproduce the formula here in text, but you need to make it a percentage and put it to the power of 90. (basically treat it like a compound interest problem)

    The result is that after 90 years, the population would drop down to 65.4 million which is still 80% of the total current population.

    Even if you ignored the shrinking population as the years progress and merely treat it as a stable loss of 204K people every year, that still only comes out to a drop of 18.4 million people after 90 years which is only a 22.5% drop in total population.

    Even if we used (the incorrect) 1.5 as the CBR, we would still only get a drop of 57% after 90 years. I can’t figure out how you got a 75% drop.

    Don’t slap the calculator, it’s not its fault, it was given faulty numbers.

  • WebMonk

    sg, ah, now I see what you did. You conflated two different numbers – the crude birth rate (CBR) and the number of children per mother. The two are completely different numbers.

    The CBR for Germany is 8.2, not 1.5.

    Here’s how you calculate it with the CBR and CDR numbers:
    Subtract the death rate from the birth rate (Germany’s result: -2.5). That means that for every thousand people in Germany the population drops by 2.5 people just due to births/deaths. Multiply that by the total population divided by 1000. Giving you 204,394. Subtract that from the total population and repeat.

    I would suggest making a simple algebraic formula out of that if you want to work it all out. I can’t neatly reproduce the formula here in text, but you need to make it a percentage and put it to the power of 90. (basically treat it like a compound interest problem)

    The result is that after 90 years, the population would drop down to 65.4 million which is still 80% of the total current population.

    Even if you ignored the shrinking population as the years progress and merely treat it as a stable loss of 204K people every year, that still only comes out to a drop of 18.4 million people after 90 years which is only a 22.5% drop in total population.

    Even if we used (the incorrect) 1.5 as the CBR, we would still only get a drop of 57% after 90 years. I can’t figure out how you got a 75% drop.

    Don’t slap the calculator, it’s not its fault, it was given faulty numbers.

  • kerner

    sg @12

    Maybe they did just manifest what was already there, but this this is really my point. Children, even teenagers, of families who hold to some firm of “traditional values” tend to mirror their parents’ values, at least superficially. But they grow up and leave home, and only then do we learn the strength of their commitment to the values they learned as children. College campuses are infamous for setting records for eroding parent’s values in the student body.

    Among the MLHS class of 1970, there are a lot of examples of behavior and life choices that are inconsistent with the values taught at MLHS from 1966-1970.

    All I’m saying is that the orthodox Jewish children of today may not be Orthodox jews in 20 years. Of course, they will still be ethnicly jews, but we have no way of predicting with any precision how many will remain committed to Orthodox Judaism. While I agree that Orthodox Judaism is likely to remain a stronger cultural force than unobservant judaism (unobservant jews, for example, may intermarry and disappear entirely as a cultural force), I don’t think more particularized predictions have much value.

    “Do you see something in European culture and society that will change (the trend in declining birth rates)?

    Nope, but that doesn’t mean much. In 1850, I doubt if anyone would have seen anything in European culture and society that would have led them to predict the events that occurred in Europe 1900-1950. I don’t think that people in 1910 would have been able to predict the changes in social behavior in Europe 1960-2010 either.

    Once you get 50 years out into the future, when it comes to human behavior you are getting into chaos theory territory. Too many variables and vectors.

    This is not to say that your analysis has no value. Actually you have taught me a lot and I’ll bet you have taught many others here a lot also. But the numbers can only take us so far.

  • kerner

    sg @12

    Maybe they did just manifest what was already there, but this this is really my point. Children, even teenagers, of families who hold to some firm of “traditional values” tend to mirror their parents’ values, at least superficially. But they grow up and leave home, and only then do we learn the strength of their commitment to the values they learned as children. College campuses are infamous for setting records for eroding parent’s values in the student body.

    Among the MLHS class of 1970, there are a lot of examples of behavior and life choices that are inconsistent with the values taught at MLHS from 1966-1970.

    All I’m saying is that the orthodox Jewish children of today may not be Orthodox jews in 20 years. Of course, they will still be ethnicly jews, but we have no way of predicting with any precision how many will remain committed to Orthodox Judaism. While I agree that Orthodox Judaism is likely to remain a stronger cultural force than unobservant judaism (unobservant jews, for example, may intermarry and disappear entirely as a cultural force), I don’t think more particularized predictions have much value.

    “Do you see something in European culture and society that will change (the trend in declining birth rates)?

    Nope, but that doesn’t mean much. In 1850, I doubt if anyone would have seen anything in European culture and society that would have led them to predict the events that occurred in Europe 1900-1950. I don’t think that people in 1910 would have been able to predict the changes in social behavior in Europe 1960-2010 either.

    Once you get 50 years out into the future, when it comes to human behavior you are getting into chaos theory territory. Too many variables and vectors.

    This is not to say that your analysis has no value. Actually you have taught me a lot and I’ll bet you have taught many others here a lot also. But the numbers can only take us so far.

  • sg

    Webmonk. All that matters is how many women there are between 15 and 45. That number is x. If the group averages 1.5 kids, the next generation will be .75 the size of theirs.

    Starting in the 1980’s, over 5 generations:

    x(.75 )(.75)(.75)(.75) (.75)= .24

    I think we can safely assume that all the folks alive in 1980 will be gone by 2100. So, the point that there are many old folks still, while true, is not indicative of the future.

    Using CBR, okay, I have seen that several ways. So I looked it up for Germany and got a number for 2007. 8.2 births per 1,000 population. Okay, that is a low number. The total number of births per woman is the one I was using. It is about 1.5 for Europe. Just to put it into perspective we can compare to some other numbers I have cited here before. The number of illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried hispanic women in the USA is 106 as of 2006. That doesn’t include the even larger number of legitimate births. So, combined that would be at least 100 births per 1,000 hispanic women or to make it per total population like the Germany number that would be roughly 50 per 1,000 population. So why the enormous difference when the total number of births per woman in Europe is about 1.5 and the total number of births per woman among hispanics is about 3.o? Well on average hispanic women in the US are much much younger and have the first baby when they are younger.

    Just to summarize

    American hispanics CBR about 50
    Europeans CBR about 10
    American hispanics TFR about 3
    Europeans TFR about 1.5

    Analogously European muslims are younger and have their children younger and have more children. So a generation for them is probably 20-25 years and for native Euros 25-30 years. So over 100 years or so there will be more generations of muslims and they will be larger. And there will be fewer generations of Euros and they will be smaller.

    Also, the disproportionally younger muslims will have a different birth death ratio than the disproportionally older Euros.

    A similar analogy hispanic immigration to the USA began a dramatic rise starting in the 1960’s. Most demographers predict a white minority by 2040. That is less than 100 years. It seems that if the differential birthrates between native Euros and muslim immigrants is similar, they could similarly be a majority in the same fashion. Numerically probably. Whether it will actually happen, well we can’t know for sure, of course. Is there something going on in the muslim countries that will get them excited about staying? I don’t see it, but maybe someone has some ideas.

  • sg

    Webmonk. All that matters is how many women there are between 15 and 45. That number is x. If the group averages 1.5 kids, the next generation will be .75 the size of theirs.

    Starting in the 1980’s, over 5 generations:

    x(.75 )(.75)(.75)(.75) (.75)= .24

    I think we can safely assume that all the folks alive in 1980 will be gone by 2100. So, the point that there are many old folks still, while true, is not indicative of the future.

    Using CBR, okay, I have seen that several ways. So I looked it up for Germany and got a number for 2007. 8.2 births per 1,000 population. Okay, that is a low number. The total number of births per woman is the one I was using. It is about 1.5 for Europe. Just to put it into perspective we can compare to some other numbers I have cited here before. The number of illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried hispanic women in the USA is 106 as of 2006. That doesn’t include the even larger number of legitimate births. So, combined that would be at least 100 births per 1,000 hispanic women or to make it per total population like the Germany number that would be roughly 50 per 1,000 population. So why the enormous difference when the total number of births per woman in Europe is about 1.5 and the total number of births per woman among hispanics is about 3.o? Well on average hispanic women in the US are much much younger and have the first baby when they are younger.

    Just to summarize

    American hispanics CBR about 50
    Europeans CBR about 10
    American hispanics TFR about 3
    Europeans TFR about 1.5

    Analogously European muslims are younger and have their children younger and have more children. So a generation for them is probably 20-25 years and for native Euros 25-30 years. So over 100 years or so there will be more generations of muslims and they will be larger. And there will be fewer generations of Euros and they will be smaller.

    Also, the disproportionally younger muslims will have a different birth death ratio than the disproportionally older Euros.

    A similar analogy hispanic immigration to the USA began a dramatic rise starting in the 1960’s. Most demographers predict a white minority by 2040. That is less than 100 years. It seems that if the differential birthrates between native Euros and muslim immigrants is similar, they could similarly be a majority in the same fashion. Numerically probably. Whether it will actually happen, well we can’t know for sure, of course. Is there something going on in the muslim countries that will get them excited about staying? I don’t see it, but maybe someone has some ideas.

  • sg

    “Once you get 50 years out into the future, when it comes to human behavior you are getting into chaos theory territory. Too many variables and vectors.”

    That is especially true if you take the position of observer and not agent. In 1850 there were definitely people interested in taking society in a new direction. They were in the universities and they wrote down what they thought and promoted it. Nietzsche was born in 1844, Marx in 1818 and Queen Victoria and her very progressive husband in 1819. All of these folks, and many others, were progressive change agents whose followers promoted their ideologies in the public schools. People running from these ideas were folks like the Missouri Lutherans who set up their own schools.
    http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/13126/5/8454.pdf

  • sg

    “Once you get 50 years out into the future, when it comes to human behavior you are getting into chaos theory territory. Too many variables and vectors.”

    That is especially true if you take the position of observer and not agent. In 1850 there were definitely people interested in taking society in a new direction. They were in the universities and they wrote down what they thought and promoted it. Nietzsche was born in 1844, Marx in 1818 and Queen Victoria and her very progressive husband in 1819. All of these folks, and many others, were progressive change agents whose followers promoted their ideologies in the public schools. People running from these ideas were folks like the Missouri Lutherans who set up their own schools.
    http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/13126/5/8454.pdf

  • WebMonk

    sg, you just made me cry. Please don’t ever, EVER go into any sort of profession that requires population statistics. Please.

  • WebMonk

    sg, you just made me cry. Please don’t ever, EVER go into any sort of profession that requires population statistics. Please.

  • WebMonk (@17), can you explain the differences in those two approaches (yours and SG’s) to calculating future populations, and why hers is wrong? I’m not trolling, I just want you to explain. What are the flaws in her assumptions?

    While I’m waiting, I thought I’d address SG’s statement (@3) that “The study makes the point that muslims won’t be a majority in one generation. Duh, we knew that.” Except that we (meaning: many people out there) don’t know that. Just watch the ridiculous claims made in the “Muslim Demographics” video on YouTube (which the Reuters article mentions and links to, and which I’ve seen posted in blog comments and Facebook statuses by many scared Evangelical Americans), whose numbers don’t even appear to be accurate, much less their conclusions.

    Point being, Pew is debunking a popular urban legend, of sorts, with data.

  • WebMonk (@17), can you explain the differences in those two approaches (yours and SG’s) to calculating future populations, and why hers is wrong? I’m not trolling, I just want you to explain. What are the flaws in her assumptions?

    While I’m waiting, I thought I’d address SG’s statement (@3) that “The study makes the point that muslims won’t be a majority in one generation. Duh, we knew that.” Except that we (meaning: many people out there) don’t know that. Just watch the ridiculous claims made in the “Muslim Demographics” video on YouTube (which the Reuters article mentions and links to, and which I’ve seen posted in blog comments and Facebook statuses by many scared Evangelical Americans), whose numbers don’t even appear to be accurate, much less their conclusions.

    Point being, Pew is debunking a popular urban legend, of sorts, with data.

  • sg

    Webmonk, I get point that it is over simplified, just to get a ballpark idea, but the point is the trend. The trend for Euros is down and the trend for muslims is up.

    Do you dispute that?

  • sg

    Webmonk, I get point that it is over simplified, just to get a ballpark idea, but the point is the trend. The trend for Euros is down and the trend for muslims is up.

    Do you dispute that?

  • sg

    “Point being, Pew is debunking a popular urban legend, of sorts, with data.”

    Except that their prediction is for 2030.

    Whereas Dr. Vieth stated the following in his intro:

    “It is widely said that the high birthrates of Muslim immigrants will eventually give them majority status in Europe.”

    See that word, “eventually” ? The study only addresses 2030.

    “Not going to happen, according to researchers.”

    Well, not by 2030.

    ” Actually, the Muslim birthrate throughout the world is declining,”

    Yes, declining but not below a level that renders an annual growth rate of 2.2%. The will still be increasing.

    “though not as much right now as with native Europeans.”

    …who have had a below replacement level birthrate for 50 years, and are entering a period of precipitous decline.

    “But the growth of the Islamic population in Europe will be too small to make much of a difference:”

    Yes, by 2030. However the actual data tables show that the muslim percentage of the population will double in many Euro countries. An increase of 100% over 20 years is not small especially as the natives are declining due to low birthrates.

    I think Webmonk takes issue with the fact that I ignored the death rate because of course those folks who are past childbearing do make up part of the population and can’t just be zeroed out, but I didn’t think it was salient to the discussion of growth, so I skipped it.

  • sg

    “Point being, Pew is debunking a popular urban legend, of sorts, with data.”

    Except that their prediction is for 2030.

    Whereas Dr. Vieth stated the following in his intro:

    “It is widely said that the high birthrates of Muslim immigrants will eventually give them majority status in Europe.”

    See that word, “eventually” ? The study only addresses 2030.

    “Not going to happen, according to researchers.”

    Well, not by 2030.

    ” Actually, the Muslim birthrate throughout the world is declining,”

    Yes, declining but not below a level that renders an annual growth rate of 2.2%. The will still be increasing.

    “though not as much right now as with native Europeans.”

    …who have had a below replacement level birthrate for 50 years, and are entering a period of precipitous decline.

    “But the growth of the Islamic population in Europe will be too small to make much of a difference:”

    Yes, by 2030. However the actual data tables show that the muslim percentage of the population will double in many Euro countries. An increase of 100% over 20 years is not small especially as the natives are declining due to low birthrates.

    I think Webmonk takes issue with the fact that I ignored the death rate because of course those folks who are past childbearing do make up part of the population and can’t just be zeroed out, but I didn’t think it was salient to the discussion of growth, so I skipped it.

  • WebMonk

    sg, first I apologize for my snarkiness. I imagine you’ve never studied population statistics, so your method sounds perfectly valid, I guess.

    TFR cannot be used to directly calculate the growth or shrinkage of a population. A TFR2.1 can have population decrease – it depends on the age structure of the population, among other things.

    And I just deleted three very, very long paragraphs talking about TFR and CBR and the differences and how they are used.

    Let’s summarize to say that a <2.1 TFR prolonged over time will inevitably lead to a shrinking population, but based just on the TFR, you cannot calculate anything about how quickly the shrink will begin or how rapidly it will take place because there are several other factors which need to be known.

    To calculate population growth with rough accuracy, use the birth-death method I mentioned above.

    If you really want to learn some more about it, there’s always Google. Here’s a link I pulled mostly at random – the first screen of the page looked good.

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

  • WebMonk

    sg, first I apologize for my snarkiness. I imagine you’ve never studied population statistics, so your method sounds perfectly valid, I guess.

    TFR cannot be used to directly calculate the growth or shrinkage of a population. A TFR2.1 can have population decrease – it depends on the age structure of the population, among other things.

    And I just deleted three very, very long paragraphs talking about TFR and CBR and the differences and how they are used.

    Let’s summarize to say that a <2.1 TFR prolonged over time will inevitably lead to a shrinking population, but based just on the TFR, you cannot calculate anything about how quickly the shrink will begin or how rapidly it will take place because there are several other factors which need to be known.

    To calculate population growth with rough accuracy, use the birth-death method I mentioned above.

    If you really want to learn some more about it, there’s always Google. Here’s a link I pulled mostly at random – the first screen of the page looked good.

    http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

  • WebMonk

    Just to make it really, really concise – using TFR the way you did gives you completely discordant answers. TFR doesn’t contain anywhere close to enough information to make calculations of population growth or decline, except (barely) within an order of magnitude accuracy.

  • WebMonk

    Just to make it really, really concise – using TFR the way you did gives you completely discordant answers. TFR doesn’t contain anywhere close to enough information to make calculations of population growth or decline, except (barely) within an order of magnitude accuracy.

  • Population growth equations are good fun – we used one as a basis for studying Dynamical Sysems, leading into Chaos Theory, in 4th year Apllied Math.

    The equation X(n+1) = R X(n) (1 – X(n)), (a recursive equation, which generates a new value from the previous value.), can be used as a simple model for species population with no predators, but limited food supply. In this case, the population is a number between 0 and 1, where 1 represents the maximum possible population and 0 represents extinction. R is the growth rate, and n is the generation number. (from here – http://universe-review.ca/R01-09-chaos.htm , but we used the same one in class).

    With varying values of R, the equation bifurcates (splits into 2 or more constant answers, and for some other values, it actually starts behaving chaotically.

    So yes, applying simple equations to population growth is a very tentative exercise only.

  • Population growth equations are good fun – we used one as a basis for studying Dynamical Sysems, leading into Chaos Theory, in 4th year Apllied Math.

    The equation X(n+1) = R X(n) (1 – X(n)), (a recursive equation, which generates a new value from the previous value.), can be used as a simple model for species population with no predators, but limited food supply. In this case, the population is a number between 0 and 1, where 1 represents the maximum possible population and 0 represents extinction. R is the growth rate, and n is the generation number. (from here – http://universe-review.ca/R01-09-chaos.htm , but we used the same one in class).

    With varying values of R, the equation bifurcates (splits into 2 or more constant answers, and for some other values, it actually starts behaving chaotically.

    So yes, applying simple equations to population growth is a very tentative exercise only.

  • WebMonk

    Louis, I just had a mathgasm from that page – good memories, good memories!

    (at the time I didn’t like it enough to follow a field with serious math, but now it has that rosy bygone-days tint to it)

  • WebMonk

    Louis, I just had a mathgasm from that page – good memories, good memories!

    (at the time I didn’t like it enough to follow a field with serious math, but now it has that rosy bygone-days tint to it)

  • WM – I know what you mean! I took that class in 1999 (some 3 years after finishing my BSc), and sometimes I still miss it.

    Of course, that is not the only math I miss – there is also Abstract Algebra (mostly Group Theory), and Combinatorics & Graph Theory. I really like the latter, but it also provided us with the most devastatingly difficult exam ever – I got something like 54%, and was in the top 20% – the average was in the lower 40% I think. But graph theory was enourmous fun.

    Some days I even miss Linear Algebra. But never analysis. 🙂

  • WM – I know what you mean! I took that class in 1999 (some 3 years after finishing my BSc), and sometimes I still miss it.

    Of course, that is not the only math I miss – there is also Abstract Algebra (mostly Group Theory), and Combinatorics & Graph Theory. I really like the latter, but it also provided us with the most devastatingly difficult exam ever – I got something like 54%, and was in the top 20% – the average was in the lower 40% I think. But graph theory was enourmous fun.

    Some days I even miss Linear Algebra. But never analysis. 🙂

  • sg

    Hey, Webmonk, I totally agree with everything you said.

    However, I was just trying to illustrate starkly how a very low TFR (below 2.1) in successive cohorts gets to suicide levels quickly. When all you say is decline and throw out numbers like TFR 1.5 and CBR 8.2, readers don’t think about what a trend like means or how it compounds, then folks like those at Pew can generate a headline grabbing study which does not promote understanding.

    As for Europe by 2100, I don’t see how CBR of 8.2 is too far from suicide.

    Do you?

  • sg

    Hey, Webmonk, I totally agree with everything you said.

    However, I was just trying to illustrate starkly how a very low TFR (below 2.1) in successive cohorts gets to suicide levels quickly. When all you say is decline and throw out numbers like TFR 1.5 and CBR 8.2, readers don’t think about what a trend like means or how it compounds, then folks like those at Pew can generate a headline grabbing study which does not promote understanding.

    As for Europe by 2100, I don’t see how CBR of 8.2 is too far from suicide.

    Do you?

  • sg

    Webmonk, based on the final graph on this page, it doesn’t seem possible for the CDR to go any lower. It also doesn’t seem likely to see an uptick for the CBR. Which means the CBR-CDR will go even more negative as deaths accelerate relative to births.

    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

    What do you think?

  • sg

    Webmonk, based on the final graph on this page, it doesn’t seem possible for the CDR to go any lower. It also doesn’t seem likely to see an uptick for the CBR. Which means the CBR-CDR will go even more negative as deaths accelerate relative to births.

    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx

    What do you think?

  • sg

    Another point, considering the ever increasing percentage of muslims in Europe and that the UN projects Europe will fall from 728 million in 2000 to 538 million in 2100 despite continued immigration, seems compatible with my assertion that native Europeans will be roughly 25% of their 2000 numbers.

    bottom of page 27, table 3
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

    Kerner will appreciate the UN’s ambitiousness, I am sure, at projecting numbers through 2300!

  • sg

    Another point, considering the ever increasing percentage of muslims in Europe and that the UN projects Europe will fall from 728 million in 2000 to 538 million in 2100 despite continued immigration, seems compatible with my assertion that native Europeans will be roughly 25% of their 2000 numbers.

    bottom of page 27, table 3
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf

    Kerner will appreciate the UN’s ambitiousness, I am sure, at projecting numbers through 2300!

  • WebMonk

    sg, I’m not denying that the growth rate of Europe will lead to a decline in population (barring immigration), but it’s not nearly as precipitous as people in some circles seem to think – certainly not a 75% drop in a century.

  • WebMonk

    sg, I’m not denying that the growth rate of Europe will lead to a decline in population (barring immigration), but it’s not nearly as precipitous as people in some circles seem to think – certainly not a 75% drop in a century.

  • sg

    Okay, how do you figure that? UN numbers seems consistent with it, anyway possible. The growth rate of Europe has been negative for so long already. According to Pew the cohorts of the native youth will be a smaller percentage of a native population that is itself much smaller. If 16% of 750 is not much, 14% of 700 is less still. With a pattern like that, we are talking big drops in short time.

    Did you look at the charts at the bottom of the Europe page in the Pew report or look at their methodology page? Very interesting. All showing sharp declines.

    methodology page:

    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-appendix-a.aspx

  • sg

    Okay, how do you figure that? UN numbers seems consistent with it, anyway possible. The growth rate of Europe has been negative for so long already. According to Pew the cohorts of the native youth will be a smaller percentage of a native population that is itself much smaller. If 16% of 750 is not much, 14% of 700 is less still. With a pattern like that, we are talking big drops in short time.

    Did you look at the charts at the bottom of the Europe page in the Pew report or look at their methodology page? Very interesting. All showing sharp declines.

    methodology page:

    http://pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-appendix-a.aspx

  • kerner

    Given my opinion of the credibility, or lack thereof, of anything coming from the UN, that they are trying to predict population figures 289 years in the future does not surprize me at all.

  • kerner

    Given my opinion of the credibility, or lack thereof, of anything coming from the UN, that they are trying to predict population figures 289 years in the future does not surprize me at all.

  • sg

    If Pew projected that LCMS membership would double as a percentage of the US population, would we consider that small? It seems odd that they are trying to downplay large increases. An increase as a share of population from 3% to 6% over 20 years is not small. Especially when the rate is already twice what it was 40 years ago. It seems 20 years was the smallest interval they thought they could choose without seeming irrelevant but without seeming to confirm what the study is trying to downplay. If they had chosen 2050, by their own methodology, they would be revealing dramatic changes that perhaps even journalists could not ignore.

  • sg

    If Pew projected that LCMS membership would double as a percentage of the US population, would we consider that small? It seems odd that they are trying to downplay large increases. An increase as a share of population from 3% to 6% over 20 years is not small. Especially when the rate is already twice what it was 40 years ago. It seems 20 years was the smallest interval they thought they could choose without seeming irrelevant but without seeming to confirm what the study is trying to downplay. If they had chosen 2050, by their own methodology, they would be revealing dramatic changes that perhaps even journalists could not ignore.

  • WebMonk

    sg 30, I’m not sure if that was directed at my 29 or not. If it was …

    How do I figure that the EU’s native population won’t drop by 75% within a century? Do I have to repeat myself? The 75% drop you keep claiming comes from using completely wrong numbers. No one else is projecting anything even remotely like that, including the UN. I don’t know why you’re clinging to the 75% number.

    “UN numbers seem consistent with it, anyway possible.” You’ll have to explain that, pointing to particular examples. On the page you linked, none of their numbers come anywhere near describing a 75% drop in the native European population within 90 years.

    Are you projecting the numbers forward again? If so, and you are getting a 75% drop again, you’re projecting the numbers WILDLY incorrectly.

    Even if you take their projected Muslim population numbers at their highest estimates listed and the lowest European estimates and project them forward for another 90 years, it still doesn’t come out to what you’re describing.

  • WebMonk

    sg 30, I’m not sure if that was directed at my 29 or not. If it was …

    How do I figure that the EU’s native population won’t drop by 75% within a century? Do I have to repeat myself? The 75% drop you keep claiming comes from using completely wrong numbers. No one else is projecting anything even remotely like that, including the UN. I don’t know why you’re clinging to the 75% number.

    “UN numbers seem consistent with it, anyway possible.” You’ll have to explain that, pointing to particular examples. On the page you linked, none of their numbers come anywhere near describing a 75% drop in the native European population within 90 years.

    Are you projecting the numbers forward again? If so, and you are getting a 75% drop again, you’re projecting the numbers WILDLY incorrectly.

    Even if you take their projected Muslim population numbers at their highest estimates listed and the lowest European estimates and project them forward for another 90 years, it still doesn’t come out to what you’re describing.

  • Cincinnatus

    I was told there would be no math.

  • Cincinnatus

    I was told there would be no math.

  • WebMonk

    MATH IS LIFE!!

  • WebMonk

    MATH IS LIFE!!

  • Webmonk @ 35: Preach it, brother!!

  • Webmonk @ 35: Preach it, brother!!

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m going to have to disagree strenuously.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’m going to have to disagree strenuously.

  • sg

    “The 75% drop you keep claiming comes from using completely wrong numbers. No one else is projecting anything even remotely like that, including the UN. I don’t know why you’re clinging to the 75% number.”

    The UN projections don’t seem to indicate who is included in their 2100 projection. They just note the decline. Assuming immigrants and their children are a significant portion of the total number projected by the UN, say 60%, why do you think it is so impossible? Pew notes that 31% of natives will be over 60 by 2030. So that will be like 31% of around 700 million who surely won’t make it to 2100, and the approximately 40% still young enough to have some kids will not replace themselves, so by 2100, how can there be 60% left? Just asking. The UN report I linked has a graph of the crude death rate in Europe going up sharply to about 15 and staying high through to about 2100, which seems consistent with what the Pew graph. I am not in love with the number 75% or anything. It just looks like it could happen. I think I understood your point about CBR-CDR, but those numbers will change according to the UN graph.

    Hey, thanks for your patience in answering. 🙂

  • sg

    “The 75% drop you keep claiming comes from using completely wrong numbers. No one else is projecting anything even remotely like that, including the UN. I don’t know why you’re clinging to the 75% number.”

    The UN projections don’t seem to indicate who is included in their 2100 projection. They just note the decline. Assuming immigrants and their children are a significant portion of the total number projected by the UN, say 60%, why do you think it is so impossible? Pew notes that 31% of natives will be over 60 by 2030. So that will be like 31% of around 700 million who surely won’t make it to 2100, and the approximately 40% still young enough to have some kids will not replace themselves, so by 2100, how can there be 60% left? Just asking. The UN report I linked has a graph of the crude death rate in Europe going up sharply to about 15 and staying high through to about 2100, which seems consistent with what the Pew graph. I am not in love with the number 75% or anything. It just looks like it could happen. I think I understood your point about CBR-CDR, but those numbers will change according to the UN graph.

    Hey, thanks for your patience in answering. 🙂

  • enoch

    Do you read your own words?
    “the percentages of Muslims in some European populations would rise from 3 to 5 percent to between 6 and 10 percent by 2030.”
    Well, doesn’t that mean DOUBLING in just 20 years. Now 5% and in 2030 there will be 10% of the Europeans will be Muslims. If I’m reading things right, and if this is so, and if the trend continues even after 2030, that means that in 2050 Muslims will be 20%!! And in 2070 40%!!! And in 2090 80%!!!!!!! So, in what ways these numbers that are mentioned (Muslim population in Europe growing from 5% to 10%) are not shocking!?!?

  • enoch

    Do you read your own words?
    “the percentages of Muslims in some European populations would rise from 3 to 5 percent to between 6 and 10 percent by 2030.”
    Well, doesn’t that mean DOUBLING in just 20 years. Now 5% and in 2030 there will be 10% of the Europeans will be Muslims. If I’m reading things right, and if this is so, and if the trend continues even after 2030, that means that in 2050 Muslims will be 20%!! And in 2070 40%!!! And in 2090 80%!!!!!!! So, in what ways these numbers that are mentioned (Muslim population in Europe growing from 5% to 10%) are not shocking!?!?

  • Cincinnatus

    Enoch: I don’t know!!!!! I do know that you are seriously abusing certain punctuation marks designed for sparing use in English syntax!!!!!!!!1one1!!1!

    Somewhat apropos of my unspecified dig at mathematics, I think the most important thing that has been mentioned in this thread is that population projections of this sort are worth little more than the virtual space they are currently consuming. Indeed, if current fertility rates in Europe are maintained for a century, demographic winter for ethnic Europeans may be on the way. But since when has any group of human beings maintained the exact same configuration of habits and behaviors for an entire century? How do we know that ethnic Europeans will not, either intentionally or otherwise, raise their birth rates, revive their family lives, regard children as blessings rather than burdens; or, for that matter, who is to say that Muslims, following the fashion of other “advanced” societies, will not severely shrink their birth rates or, due to political advancements at “home,” stop flooding the gates of Europe? All of this is a vain speculation about complete hypotheticals. It is amusing, to be sure, but to stake one’s political disposition on it (as sg seems to do) is foolish.

    No doubt in 1911, some population enthusiasts/statisticians believed that an influx of Southern Europeans and their near-inhuman birthrates would consume America and its “civilized” English and Germanic stock. It didn’t happen. Fertility rates, social and religious values, cultural configurations, immigration patterns, and anything else related to that ambiguous term “demography” change over time in unpredictable ways. As such, math isn’t life, and its application to the so-called “human sciences” is grossly overrated. And the heated debate between sg and WebMonk–which is, I assume, enjoyable for people who find math enjoyable–thus comes across as parochial buffoonery if it is meant seriously: if current trends continue, sure, ethnic Europeans will be fading from the face of the planet, whether the number is 75% in 21xx or something lower. But who can say if “current trends” will continue?

  • Cincinnatus

    Enoch: I don’t know!!!!! I do know that you are seriously abusing certain punctuation marks designed for sparing use in English syntax!!!!!!!!1one1!!1!

    Somewhat apropos of my unspecified dig at mathematics, I think the most important thing that has been mentioned in this thread is that population projections of this sort are worth little more than the virtual space they are currently consuming. Indeed, if current fertility rates in Europe are maintained for a century, demographic winter for ethnic Europeans may be on the way. But since when has any group of human beings maintained the exact same configuration of habits and behaviors for an entire century? How do we know that ethnic Europeans will not, either intentionally or otherwise, raise their birth rates, revive their family lives, regard children as blessings rather than burdens; or, for that matter, who is to say that Muslims, following the fashion of other “advanced” societies, will not severely shrink their birth rates or, due to political advancements at “home,” stop flooding the gates of Europe? All of this is a vain speculation about complete hypotheticals. It is amusing, to be sure, but to stake one’s political disposition on it (as sg seems to do) is foolish.

    No doubt in 1911, some population enthusiasts/statisticians believed that an influx of Southern Europeans and their near-inhuman birthrates would consume America and its “civilized” English and Germanic stock. It didn’t happen. Fertility rates, social and religious values, cultural configurations, immigration patterns, and anything else related to that ambiguous term “demography” change over time in unpredictable ways. As such, math isn’t life, and its application to the so-called “human sciences” is grossly overrated. And the heated debate between sg and WebMonk–which is, I assume, enjoyable for people who find math enjoyable–thus comes across as parochial buffoonery if it is meant seriously: if current trends continue, sure, ethnic Europeans will be fading from the face of the planet, whether the number is 75% in 21xx or something lower. But who can say if “current trends” will continue?

  • sg

    enoch,

    Pew notes that muslim fertility is falling and also thinks muslim immigration will slow, so the rate of acceleration will decrease. It is not linear. Obviously their share of the population cannot go above 100%, even though they could double (or triple or quadruple or whatever) in absolute numbers. But they don’t even need to double in absolute numbers to go from 3% to 6% in a country that has native deaths outpacing births. However if muslim fertility stays above 2.1 and native European stays below 2.1, the muslim share must eventually increase. The average age of mothers at the first birth also counts because the younger they are, the more generations can live concurrently. If muslim mothers are both younger and have more children, then their share increases faster than if they are as old on average as European women when they have their first baby.

    You can’t really blame people for wanting to live in a nicer place and have a family. The problem is they probably can’t maintain a liberal democracy. That, ironically, won’t be only a problem for the Europeans, it will be the muslims’ problem as well. Consider the post I cited with the photos of the graduating classes. In 1959, the Egyptian students looked much like European students in dress etc. Since then muslim Arabs and Europeans have gone in culturally opposite directions. Hypothetically, anyone can secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. In practice, uh, maybe not.

  • sg

    enoch,

    Pew notes that muslim fertility is falling and also thinks muslim immigration will slow, so the rate of acceleration will decrease. It is not linear. Obviously their share of the population cannot go above 100%, even though they could double (or triple or quadruple or whatever) in absolute numbers. But they don’t even need to double in absolute numbers to go from 3% to 6% in a country that has native deaths outpacing births. However if muslim fertility stays above 2.1 and native European stays below 2.1, the muslim share must eventually increase. The average age of mothers at the first birth also counts because the younger they are, the more generations can live concurrently. If muslim mothers are both younger and have more children, then their share increases faster than if they are as old on average as European women when they have their first baby.

    You can’t really blame people for wanting to live in a nicer place and have a family. The problem is they probably can’t maintain a liberal democracy. That, ironically, won’t be only a problem for the Europeans, it will be the muslims’ problem as well. Consider the post I cited with the photos of the graduating classes. In 1959, the Egyptian students looked much like European students in dress etc. Since then muslim Arabs and Europeans have gone in culturally opposite directions. Hypothetically, anyone can secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. In practice, uh, maybe not.

  • WebMonk

    enoch, apparently you don’t realize how extremely ridiculous your “projection” is, and I’m not going to try explaining all the reasons, because I would have to go back to the very basics of how populations grow and build all the way back up, and that would result in ten pages of dense text which would have everyone snoozing by the second page. (just like that was a dense, long, boring sentence) Suffice it to say say nothing in real life EVER follows a geometric progression like what you did (not even bacteria population growth), and ESPECIALLY NOT populations of humans!!!1!1!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!!1111!!!111!11!1!!!

    sg, I don’t know exactly what you are doing to the numbers to get your ballpark figures, but whatever you are doing is total nonsense as judged by the results you are getting. Your exercises with the 31% over 60 years old is starting out with a very minimally useful number, and what you hinted at doing with that number is a completely invalid use of it even if it were a useful number for what you’re trying to do.

    Here’s what you need to do if you want to get gross population projections – completely ignore percentages of people within certain age brackets and similar statistics because that number is virtually useless in projecting population change except when used in conjunction with a LOT of other statistics.

    Stick with the CBR/CDR numbers. Follow the steps I mentioned up in 13. As much as you may want to try doing calculations based on TFR and various percentages in certain age brackets – don’t. Those need to be combined with literally dozens of other statistics in some really hairy equations to come up with projections. The CBR/CDR numbers are the ones you can use without nutty equations with scores of variables.

    Cincinnatus – I think you missed my point because my point is similar to what you said it isn’t. Populations DO NOT follow geometric progressions. The main thing I’m griping about is that the numbers available in the report here are being horribly mangled and misused in various projections here in the comments. The reports projections are of questionable accuracy, at least beyond the next couple decades, but within that range they look decent – probably accurate within a reasonable margin of error.

    I completely agree that the projection of current rates into the future without change quickly become completely baseless because things do change. And they are even more baseless when the numbers aren’t even being projected correctly, which is what I’m being a bore about with sg.

    (and yes, I realize I’m being a bore. sg, feel free to drop out of the conversation whenever you want – you’ve stumbled into an area I really, really enjoy and will wax non-poetically for far too long)

  • WebMonk

    enoch, apparently you don’t realize how extremely ridiculous your “projection” is, and I’m not going to try explaining all the reasons, because I would have to go back to the very basics of how populations grow and build all the way back up, and that would result in ten pages of dense text which would have everyone snoozing by the second page. (just like that was a dense, long, boring sentence) Suffice it to say say nothing in real life EVER follows a geometric progression like what you did (not even bacteria population growth), and ESPECIALLY NOT populations of humans!!!1!1!!!!!111!!!!!1!!!!1111!!!111!11!1!!!

    sg, I don’t know exactly what you are doing to the numbers to get your ballpark figures, but whatever you are doing is total nonsense as judged by the results you are getting. Your exercises with the 31% over 60 years old is starting out with a very minimally useful number, and what you hinted at doing with that number is a completely invalid use of it even if it were a useful number for what you’re trying to do.

    Here’s what you need to do if you want to get gross population projections – completely ignore percentages of people within certain age brackets and similar statistics because that number is virtually useless in projecting population change except when used in conjunction with a LOT of other statistics.

    Stick with the CBR/CDR numbers. Follow the steps I mentioned up in 13. As much as you may want to try doing calculations based on TFR and various percentages in certain age brackets – don’t. Those need to be combined with literally dozens of other statistics in some really hairy equations to come up with projections. The CBR/CDR numbers are the ones you can use without nutty equations with scores of variables.

    Cincinnatus – I think you missed my point because my point is similar to what you said it isn’t. Populations DO NOT follow geometric progressions. The main thing I’m griping about is that the numbers available in the report here are being horribly mangled and misused in various projections here in the comments. The reports projections are of questionable accuracy, at least beyond the next couple decades, but within that range they look decent – probably accurate within a reasonable margin of error.

    I completely agree that the projection of current rates into the future without change quickly become completely baseless because things do change. And they are even more baseless when the numbers aren’t even being projected correctly, which is what I’m being a bore about with sg.

    (and yes, I realize I’m being a bore. sg, feel free to drop out of the conversation whenever you want – you’ve stumbled into an area I really, really enjoy and will wax non-poetically for far too long)

  • WebMonk

    sg 41 – part of what you said is of key importance – “However if muslim fertility stays above 2.1 and native European stays below 2.1, the muslim share must eventually increase.”

    That word “eventually” is the key word. For two completely even, separate, and equal populations, A with a 2.5 fert rate, and B with a 1.5 fert rate, you will need over 7 generations before A becomes double the size of B. (note the part in italics)

    In the situation in Europe, the populations aren’t anywhere near even, equal, separate – all of those factors push away the date when Muslim populations dramatically overshadow the native populations by MANY generations. My SWAG, if I had to make one, would be somewhere around 25 to 50 generations, keeping everything exactly the same as it is now. (which is a completely invalid real-life assumption)

    That word “eventually” is an important one, and in this case, that “eventually” won’t happen for a VERY long time if things continue as they are.

  • WebMonk

    sg 41 – part of what you said is of key importance – “However if muslim fertility stays above 2.1 and native European stays below 2.1, the muslim share must eventually increase.”

    That word “eventually” is the key word. For two completely even, separate, and equal populations, A with a 2.5 fert rate, and B with a 1.5 fert rate, you will need over 7 generations before A becomes double the size of B. (note the part in italics)

    In the situation in Europe, the populations aren’t anywhere near even, equal, separate – all of those factors push away the date when Muslim populations dramatically overshadow the native populations by MANY generations. My SWAG, if I had to make one, would be somewhere around 25 to 50 generations, keeping everything exactly the same as it is now. (which is a completely invalid real-life assumption)

    That word “eventually” is an important one, and in this case, that “eventually” won’t happen for a VERY long time if things continue as they are.

  • sg

    You know, Webmonk, I may be annoying but my point is to understand something. It doesn’t bother me to be corrected, snarked, ridiculed or whatever, because I want to get that nugget and it doesn’t matter that the knowledgeable person doesn’t like me, my questions or whatever. I still want to understand the point and am too tenacious to let the point go until I get it. I am not committed to defending an inaccuracy, but I can’t accept a “because I said so” explanation. I have to understand it myself. Of course, you are free to ignore me.

    Okay.

    CBR/CDR numbers themselves change, so how can they be used for more than say a decade? The projections (based on the size of the age cohorts) indicate that they will rise and fall over the course of 90 years.

  • sg

    You know, Webmonk, I may be annoying but my point is to understand something. It doesn’t bother me to be corrected, snarked, ridiculed or whatever, because I want to get that nugget and it doesn’t matter that the knowledgeable person doesn’t like me, my questions or whatever. I still want to understand the point and am too tenacious to let the point go until I get it. I am not committed to defending an inaccuracy, but I can’t accept a “because I said so” explanation. I have to understand it myself. Of course, you are free to ignore me.

    Okay.

    CBR/CDR numbers themselves change, so how can they be used for more than say a decade? The projections (based on the size of the age cohorts) indicate that they will rise and fall over the course of 90 years.

  • sg

    ” A with a 2.5 fert rate, and B with a 1.5 fert rate, you will need over 7 generations before A becomes double the size of B.”

    What about the length of the generations?

    What if A’s generation length is 30 years and B’s is 20? or vice versa?

  • sg

    ” A with a 2.5 fert rate, and B with a 1.5 fert rate, you will need over 7 generations before A becomes double the size of B.”

    What about the length of the generations?

    What if A’s generation length is 30 years and B’s is 20? or vice versa?

  • WebMonk

    I used the same length of generation for both A and B, and a host of other simplifications to make the calculations simpler. (For one, I made the pre-fertile age range 0-19, fertile age range 20-39, and the two age ranges above them 40-59, and 60-79 – all nice and even ranges and easier to calculate, and I didn’t try to account for the shrinking population of the older groups. Yes, those things skewed the results, but not too dramatically and a couple of the changes worked to skew things in opposite directions, tending to cancel each other out. Even with those simplifications, though, it still took me two pages of pretty dense calculations to work it out.).

    You can alter the length of the generation, but unless that alters the TFR or perhaps dramatically spreads out the age range over which the TFR applies, it will have a limited effect. Having people just live longer after they are no longer fertile has a limited effect, and adjusting the TFR age ranges 15-39 to 25-39 without adjusting the TFR doesn’t dramatically affect things either since they will still have the same number of children.

    The equations to use TFR need to take into account the fact that generations overlap and stretch out, and that generations are different sizes. Those can cause a later generation to be larger than the preceding generation even if the preceding generation’s TFR was less than 2.1. That is a temporary happening, and eventually a TFR less than 2.1 will lead to a shrinking population, but changes in length of life, variations in populations within various age ranges, and several other factors all will change the results. That’s why one can’t just use TRF in a geometric or linear progression.

    One advantage of using TFR is that a lot of factors can be included in the projections – immigration, infant death rates, and almost anything else one needs to account for can be added into the equations and algorithms that use TFR. That’s the advantage of TFR.

    I wish I had a whiteboard because there are some illustrations with stacked blocks representing groupings of age ranges that really help to clear up how TFR works.

    The CBR/CDR method is very simple to use, but it cannot take anything but the CBR and CDR into account. Those are very useful numbers, but don’t take much into account, and have exactly zero predictive ability on their own. The way CBR and CDR numbers are used to project population changes is to find an already existing series of CBR/CDR numbers which the researcher feels accurately reflects what a certain population will do in the future, and then use those numbers to calculate the future population. Those numbers can be adjusted if the researcher feels that a country is likely to have a change in CBR or CDR, but those adjustments are all generated from outside sources and imposed on the CBRCDR calculation. The calculation itself cannot make any predictions about what future years’ numbers will be – it is entirely up to what the researcher things future CBRCDR numbers will be.

    Now, if a researcher makes some very good guesses and outside calculations about what coming CBRCDR numbers will be, then the calculations will be very accurate and very easy to make, but that is entirely dependent on the accuracy of what the researcher sets future CBRCDR numbers to be.

    Thankfully for researchers, CBRCDR numbers don’t change very dramatically, usually. If they change, they typically change in relatively gradual and generally predictable patterns. As a country becomes more wealthy, the CBR and CDR will very likely drop, and a dozen other very typical changes. One thing that caught some researchers by surprise was in Mexico (I think) the CBR began to drop in a huge way, without any significant changes in wealth or other typical causes; what they finally determined the cause to be was that several telenovelas became extremely popular and all the women in the telenovelas were successful, beautiful, and had very few children. 😀

  • WebMonk

    I used the same length of generation for both A and B, and a host of other simplifications to make the calculations simpler. (For one, I made the pre-fertile age range 0-19, fertile age range 20-39, and the two age ranges above them 40-59, and 60-79 – all nice and even ranges and easier to calculate, and I didn’t try to account for the shrinking population of the older groups. Yes, those things skewed the results, but not too dramatically and a couple of the changes worked to skew things in opposite directions, tending to cancel each other out. Even with those simplifications, though, it still took me two pages of pretty dense calculations to work it out.).

    You can alter the length of the generation, but unless that alters the TFR or perhaps dramatically spreads out the age range over which the TFR applies, it will have a limited effect. Having people just live longer after they are no longer fertile has a limited effect, and adjusting the TFR age ranges 15-39 to 25-39 without adjusting the TFR doesn’t dramatically affect things either since they will still have the same number of children.

    The equations to use TFR need to take into account the fact that generations overlap and stretch out, and that generations are different sizes. Those can cause a later generation to be larger than the preceding generation even if the preceding generation’s TFR was less than 2.1. That is a temporary happening, and eventually a TFR less than 2.1 will lead to a shrinking population, but changes in length of life, variations in populations within various age ranges, and several other factors all will change the results. That’s why one can’t just use TRF in a geometric or linear progression.

    One advantage of using TFR is that a lot of factors can be included in the projections – immigration, infant death rates, and almost anything else one needs to account for can be added into the equations and algorithms that use TFR. That’s the advantage of TFR.

    I wish I had a whiteboard because there are some illustrations with stacked blocks representing groupings of age ranges that really help to clear up how TFR works.

    The CBR/CDR method is very simple to use, but it cannot take anything but the CBR and CDR into account. Those are very useful numbers, but don’t take much into account, and have exactly zero predictive ability on their own. The way CBR and CDR numbers are used to project population changes is to find an already existing series of CBR/CDR numbers which the researcher feels accurately reflects what a certain population will do in the future, and then use those numbers to calculate the future population. Those numbers can be adjusted if the researcher feels that a country is likely to have a change in CBR or CDR, but those adjustments are all generated from outside sources and imposed on the CBRCDR calculation. The calculation itself cannot make any predictions about what future years’ numbers will be – it is entirely up to what the researcher things future CBRCDR numbers will be.

    Now, if a researcher makes some very good guesses and outside calculations about what coming CBRCDR numbers will be, then the calculations will be very accurate and very easy to make, but that is entirely dependent on the accuracy of what the researcher sets future CBRCDR numbers to be.

    Thankfully for researchers, CBRCDR numbers don’t change very dramatically, usually. If they change, they typically change in relatively gradual and generally predictable patterns. As a country becomes more wealthy, the CBR and CDR will very likely drop, and a dozen other very typical changes. One thing that caught some researchers by surprise was in Mexico (I think) the CBR began to drop in a huge way, without any significant changes in wealth or other typical causes; what they finally determined the cause to be was that several telenovelas became extremely popular and all the women in the telenovelas were successful, beautiful, and had very few children. 😀

  • sg

    Okay, I only have about a thousand questions now from your response, but will put them aside to first start with something that came to mind earlier.

    The comparison of 7 generations of two separated groups you offered reminded me of the difference between an overfunded pension scheme (mythical creature) and an underfunded pension scheme. The growing population can grow more prosperous because it is proportionally younger, so the ability to care for everyone is greater than their needs whereas the shrinking population encounters greater needs than the wherewithal to provide them.

    Anyway, assuming I understood you correctly, looking at the snapshot of where the two populations are after 7 generations shows that if both started at 1 million each, after 7 generations one is 1.5 million and the other is .75 million. So, one is double the size of the other, 2:1. However, the ratio of the group of 0-20 year olds is not 2:1. (maybe more like 10:1) So, if both groups suddenly changed in the 8th generation to a replacement birthrate of about 2.1, the group that had been growing would rapidly stabilize, but the one that had been shrinking would continue shrinking until it reached a terminal stable size commensurate with the size of its youngest cohorts. So, like the underfunded pension plan, a plan with insufficient principle cannot even maintain what it has because it is committed to disburse payments just as older cohorts are destined for the grave. Disbursed payments cannot generate return on investment anymore than older generations can contribute to maintaining a population’s size. Now you acknowledged this, but I wanted to characterize the vast and important difference between the ratio of the two totals and the ratio of the sizes of the youngest cohort.

    So when looking at populations like Europe, it doesn’t matter to the future that they presently have 300 million folks 45 and older. Only the behavior of the other 400 million matters to the future growth or decline. The question is not whether or even when the 300million older folks pass away, but the rate at which the 400 million replace themselves. So, it seems more reasonable just to use the 400 million as the basis for calculating than all 700 million. Now that may not be standard for calculating populations, but it isn’t crazy.

    Folks using calculations find new and different ways to do stuff all the time, because they want to know x based on y and they don’t care about a, b, and c for the time being. So, put me in that category. How many 0-20 year old Europeans will there be in 2100 based on their current birthrate (take your pick, CBR or TFR) and the size of the current group of 0-20 year old Europeans.

    So, while I don’t argue with the technical accuracy of your complaints against my crude calculations, I do challenge the value of knowing how many total native Europeans there will be in 2100 vs knowing how many 0-20 year olds there will be among them in 2100 (as well as how many immigrant muslims there are in that same group). If out of the current 700 million natives, 14% are 0-20, and my crude estimate that that number will indeed be reduced by 75% in 2100, that seems pretty dire for those folks as Arab/Islamic culture is far more assertive and rigid than liberal western democracy. And yes, they can rest assured that they are still a majority in their own homeland as long as they keep Oma on life support in the Altenheim. Of course, they probably won’t.

    Another point. What traits do modern liberal democratic societies select for? That is which groups increase under such a system? Which decrease? Is there an adverse selection pressure at work? If yes, what and why, if not, why, and why not?

    Okay.

    Short personal note. Years ago, I would sometimes have trouble falling asleep, so my husband would read a sci fi or mystery novel to me, so I could fall asleep. Very effective, knocked me out. Then one time he got a new book on economics and generational accounting for the lay reader. As he read, I kept asking questions. He finally laughed and told me I would never fall asleep because the book was keeping me awake by appealing to my curiosity.

    Thanks for the response @ 46.

    This is already too long, but my brain was full and I could not move on till I made a couple of these points. I will put my questions regarding your comments @ 46 in another comment.

  • sg

    Okay, I only have about a thousand questions now from your response, but will put them aside to first start with something that came to mind earlier.

    The comparison of 7 generations of two separated groups you offered reminded me of the difference between an overfunded pension scheme (mythical creature) and an underfunded pension scheme. The growing population can grow more prosperous because it is proportionally younger, so the ability to care for everyone is greater than their needs whereas the shrinking population encounters greater needs than the wherewithal to provide them.

    Anyway, assuming I understood you correctly, looking at the snapshot of where the two populations are after 7 generations shows that if both started at 1 million each, after 7 generations one is 1.5 million and the other is .75 million. So, one is double the size of the other, 2:1. However, the ratio of the group of 0-20 year olds is not 2:1. (maybe more like 10:1) So, if both groups suddenly changed in the 8th generation to a replacement birthrate of about 2.1, the group that had been growing would rapidly stabilize, but the one that had been shrinking would continue shrinking until it reached a terminal stable size commensurate with the size of its youngest cohorts. So, like the underfunded pension plan, a plan with insufficient principle cannot even maintain what it has because it is committed to disburse payments just as older cohorts are destined for the grave. Disbursed payments cannot generate return on investment anymore than older generations can contribute to maintaining a population’s size. Now you acknowledged this, but I wanted to characterize the vast and important difference between the ratio of the two totals and the ratio of the sizes of the youngest cohort.

    So when looking at populations like Europe, it doesn’t matter to the future that they presently have 300 million folks 45 and older. Only the behavior of the other 400 million matters to the future growth or decline. The question is not whether or even when the 300million older folks pass away, but the rate at which the 400 million replace themselves. So, it seems more reasonable just to use the 400 million as the basis for calculating than all 700 million. Now that may not be standard for calculating populations, but it isn’t crazy.

    Folks using calculations find new and different ways to do stuff all the time, because they want to know x based on y and they don’t care about a, b, and c for the time being. So, put me in that category. How many 0-20 year old Europeans will there be in 2100 based on their current birthrate (take your pick, CBR or TFR) and the size of the current group of 0-20 year old Europeans.

    So, while I don’t argue with the technical accuracy of your complaints against my crude calculations, I do challenge the value of knowing how many total native Europeans there will be in 2100 vs knowing how many 0-20 year olds there will be among them in 2100 (as well as how many immigrant muslims there are in that same group). If out of the current 700 million natives, 14% are 0-20, and my crude estimate that that number will indeed be reduced by 75% in 2100, that seems pretty dire for those folks as Arab/Islamic culture is far more assertive and rigid than liberal western democracy. And yes, they can rest assured that they are still a majority in their own homeland as long as they keep Oma on life support in the Altenheim. Of course, they probably won’t.

    Another point. What traits do modern liberal democratic societies select for? That is which groups increase under such a system? Which decrease? Is there an adverse selection pressure at work? If yes, what and why, if not, why, and why not?

    Okay.

    Short personal note. Years ago, I would sometimes have trouble falling asleep, so my husband would read a sci fi or mystery novel to me, so I could fall asleep. Very effective, knocked me out. Then one time he got a new book on economics and generational accounting for the lay reader. As he read, I kept asking questions. He finally laughed and told me I would never fall asleep because the book was keeping me awake by appealing to my curiosity.

    Thanks for the response @ 46.

    This is already too long, but my brain was full and I could not move on till I made a couple of these points. I will put my questions regarding your comments @ 46 in another comment.

  • WebMonk

    sg47

    Paragraph 3 – vaguely right. It will NOT stabilize at the youngest fertile generation’s TFR*fertilePopulationSize. In general terms, if a shrinking population suddenly changes their TFR to 2.1 they will stabilize at a point typically somewhere below the population’s size at the time the TFR changes. (though the exact number will vary according to the population distribution within the fertile age bracket and a couple other things)

    Paragraph 4. It may not sound crazy to you, but it will give you completely wrong results nonetheless – not even vaguely accurate. That addresses your thoughts in P 5 and P 6. You may think it sounds reasonable, but the results of that method of calculation give you fundamentally incorrect/nonsensical answers.

    The 0-20 age group of now will NOT result in a 0-20 age group shrunken by 75% in 100 years (5 generations). I know you want to keep using that calculation, but it is a fundamentally flawed way of calculating what you’re trying to find out, even for very crude levels of accuracy.

    Taking the existing CBR/CDR for the EU, and projecting out into the future for 100 years, decreasing the CBR each year by .03 (a VERY rapid drop in births!!, much faster than what we see or is even vaguely likely, but I’m making it that high to prove a point):
    Of the current total population of 492,387,344, 75,933,127 are 0-14. (cia factbook on EU)
    In 100 years, the total population will be around 404 million, and the 0-14 age group will be around 41 million. (that is without any immigration or emigration, obviously)

    To give you a clue as to why TFR is not something to use, the current TFR for the EU is 1.5, and yet their birth-to-death ratio is 1:1.05. The TFR doesn’t give you even the vaguest basis to calculate population changes without a HOST of other values that are ABSOLUTELY necessary to include. Those other values aren’t merely things you can add in for added precision (some are) – many of those other values are absolutely necessary to use to derive any sort of useful information from the TFR.

    When you want to calculate future populations, totally ignore the TFR and percentages of populations within certain age brackets unless you are using some very intricate calculations. The TFR fundamentally CANNOT be used in calculations like what you’re trying to do. You will get just as accurate answers by feeding the TFR digits into a quadratic equation and solving for x. (which is to say the results will be totally worthless)

    Paragraph 7 – what traits are selected for, etc. That is way outside my knowledge, and even people who are in the field can only give very vague answers to those questions, and the answers seem to be wrong far too often to base serious policy on them.

  • WebMonk

    sg47

    Paragraph 3 – vaguely right. It will NOT stabilize at the youngest fertile generation’s TFR*fertilePopulationSize. In general terms, if a shrinking population suddenly changes their TFR to 2.1 they will stabilize at a point typically somewhere below the population’s size at the time the TFR changes. (though the exact number will vary according to the population distribution within the fertile age bracket and a couple other things)

    Paragraph 4. It may not sound crazy to you, but it will give you completely wrong results nonetheless – not even vaguely accurate. That addresses your thoughts in P 5 and P 6. You may think it sounds reasonable, but the results of that method of calculation give you fundamentally incorrect/nonsensical answers.

    The 0-20 age group of now will NOT result in a 0-20 age group shrunken by 75% in 100 years (5 generations). I know you want to keep using that calculation, but it is a fundamentally flawed way of calculating what you’re trying to find out, even for very crude levels of accuracy.

    Taking the existing CBR/CDR for the EU, and projecting out into the future for 100 years, decreasing the CBR each year by .03 (a VERY rapid drop in births!!, much faster than what we see or is even vaguely likely, but I’m making it that high to prove a point):
    Of the current total population of 492,387,344, 75,933,127 are 0-14. (cia factbook on EU)
    In 100 years, the total population will be around 404 million, and the 0-14 age group will be around 41 million. (that is without any immigration or emigration, obviously)

    To give you a clue as to why TFR is not something to use, the current TFR for the EU is 1.5, and yet their birth-to-death ratio is 1:1.05. The TFR doesn’t give you even the vaguest basis to calculate population changes without a HOST of other values that are ABSOLUTELY necessary to include. Those other values aren’t merely things you can add in for added precision (some are) – many of those other values are absolutely necessary to use to derive any sort of useful information from the TFR.

    When you want to calculate future populations, totally ignore the TFR and percentages of populations within certain age brackets unless you are using some very intricate calculations. The TFR fundamentally CANNOT be used in calculations like what you’re trying to do. You will get just as accurate answers by feeding the TFR digits into a quadratic equation and solving for x. (which is to say the results will be totally worthless)

    Paragraph 7 – what traits are selected for, etc. That is way outside my knowledge, and even people who are in the field can only give very vague answers to those questions, and the answers seem to be wrong far too often to base serious policy on them.

  • Joanne

    Hi sg
    Did you notice that when you used concepts from economics that WebMonk granted you some points?
    Back in the dark ages of the 1980s (pre-PC), I took a course in demographics (used John Weeks’ “Population” text, still have it) and one of the first things we learned is that populations in living organisms have a tendancy to grow in the manner that compounding interest grows.
    And, poor Cincinnatus, there will be math, just as there is in economics. I considered this class and a class on economic geography to be two that showed a bright light on the real world for me in an otherwise mostly theoretical curriculum.
    But math is the study of logic with numbers. Numbers is a language written in a peculiar script. Often the answer is so complex that it can only be found through numbers. Still, the answer is logical and in many cases can be explained in English, as I see sg asking WebMonk to do.
    I wish we could have done algorhythms and illustrated graphs and maps wayback when I took the class, but on a computer. These things are available online now, the Pew Report has interactive maps attached with the values plugged in that it wants you to use.

    Now as regards the bone of contention between the Blues and the Greens. I see one side saying that Western society needs to take action now to slow down or stop Muslim immigration into Western societies, and the other side says that there is no need to take any action, that natural population dynamic change will happen over time of which we have plenty and we’ll all eventually be chummy, so just let history unflold before us.
    Now, I’m hearing from news reports that the Pew Report is responding to urban legends, youtubes from knuckle-draggers and wikileaks (just kidding). But I suspect that the Pew Report’s primary target is the 2006 book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, a popular work on practically all the points covered in the Pew Report.
    It’s amazing that all the facts and all the math are the same in both Pew and Steyn, but the conclusions as to what it means culturally and politically are as different as blue and green.
    The best historical analogy was used by Cincannatus back @40 when he mentioned the huge southern European immigrations to American around 1911, one hundred years ago. He wanted us to notice “what a difference a century makes, just 100 little years.” Today Italy competes with Greece and Spain for the lowest of the low European birth rates. At one time it looked as though Roman Catholicism would flood America from inexhaustible sources, but has gotten to about 30% and stalled. Who knew in 1911 that Vatican II would come along and take the hots out of the RCs?

    O tempora. Time, do we have the time? The American congress did slow down immigration after 1911 and gave the country a breathing space, but so did WWI and then WWII.
    I suspect we’ll need both societal blocks and natural blocks to slow down the migrations from the east. But nature will go her own way leaving the advantage to those who make it so. From my reading of history, if there are going to be constant and successive invasions, the more time civilization has to bleed through each successive invasion, the more civilization bleeds through. Give us time, Oh Lord, in our day that we may rise up and praise your holy name.

  • Joanne

    Hi sg
    Did you notice that when you used concepts from economics that WebMonk granted you some points?
    Back in the dark ages of the 1980s (pre-PC), I took a course in demographics (used John Weeks’ “Population” text, still have it) and one of the first things we learned is that populations in living organisms have a tendancy to grow in the manner that compounding interest grows.
    And, poor Cincinnatus, there will be math, just as there is in economics. I considered this class and a class on economic geography to be two that showed a bright light on the real world for me in an otherwise mostly theoretical curriculum.
    But math is the study of logic with numbers. Numbers is a language written in a peculiar script. Often the answer is so complex that it can only be found through numbers. Still, the answer is logical and in many cases can be explained in English, as I see sg asking WebMonk to do.
    I wish we could have done algorhythms and illustrated graphs and maps wayback when I took the class, but on a computer. These things are available online now, the Pew Report has interactive maps attached with the values plugged in that it wants you to use.

    Now as regards the bone of contention between the Blues and the Greens. I see one side saying that Western society needs to take action now to slow down or stop Muslim immigration into Western societies, and the other side says that there is no need to take any action, that natural population dynamic change will happen over time of which we have plenty and we’ll all eventually be chummy, so just let history unflold before us.
    Now, I’m hearing from news reports that the Pew Report is responding to urban legends, youtubes from knuckle-draggers and wikileaks (just kidding). But I suspect that the Pew Report’s primary target is the 2006 book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, a popular work on practically all the points covered in the Pew Report.
    It’s amazing that all the facts and all the math are the same in both Pew and Steyn, but the conclusions as to what it means culturally and politically are as different as blue and green.
    The best historical analogy was used by Cincannatus back @40 when he mentioned the huge southern European immigrations to American around 1911, one hundred years ago. He wanted us to notice “what a difference a century makes, just 100 little years.” Today Italy competes with Greece and Spain for the lowest of the low European birth rates. At one time it looked as though Roman Catholicism would flood America from inexhaustible sources, but has gotten to about 30% and stalled. Who knew in 1911 that Vatican II would come along and take the hots out of the RCs?

    O tempora. Time, do we have the time? The American congress did slow down immigration after 1911 and gave the country a breathing space, but so did WWI and then WWII.
    I suspect we’ll need both societal blocks and natural blocks to slow down the migrations from the east. But nature will go her own way leaving the advantage to those who make it so. From my reading of history, if there are going to be constant and successive invasions, the more time civilization has to bleed through each successive invasion, the more civilization bleeds through. Give us time, Oh Lord, in our day that we may rise up and praise your holy name.

  • sg

    The following statement confused me:

    “The calculation itself cannot make any predictions about what future years’ numbers will be – it is entirely up to what the researcher things future CBRCDR numbers will be.”

    Okay, the CDR should be straightforward if they haven’t misplaced their mortality rate tables. They know how many folks were born each year, so they know when they will pass away. There are records of immigrants and their ages compiled into reports of ages etc. So, it seems all of that is near certain. CBR obviously is a guess to some extent. However, the number of women at each age is known. So, if they have the same birthrate as women the same age in the immediate past, then one could assume a similar rate. So why would a researcher think they would be different?

    “Thankfully for researchers, CBRCDR numbers don’t change very dramatically, usually. If they change, they typically change in relatively gradual and generally predictable patterns.”

    This is like the last one. I mean the UN report noted that the CDR would go up and then back down here midcentury. I assume that is just based on how many folks there are at a certain age. It is known what percentage of 55 year olds will die each year.

    “One thing that caught some researchers by surprise was in Mexico (I think) the CBR began to drop in a huge way, without any significant changes in wealth or other typical causes; what they finally determined the cause to be was that several telenovelas became extremely popular and all the women in the telenovelas were successful, beautiful, and had very few children.”

    So did the guys think their wives would get richer and better looking if they had fewer kids? 🙂
    Mexico’s TFR is pretty close to 2.0 now. Like other places, the rich have fewer kids and the poor more. They average about 3.0 when they move to the US. Given that Mexico has the greatest wealth disparity on earth, the rich are probably fine letting their poor leave.

    “The equations to use TFR need to take into account the fact that generations overlap and stretch out, and that generations are different sizes. Those can cause a later generation to be larger than the preceding generation even if the preceding generation’s TFR was less than 2.1.”

    How are you using “generation” here? It doesn’t seem like you mean birth cohort, like all the folks born between 2000 and 2020, or some such.

    “Of the current total population of 492,387,344, 75,933,127 are 0-14. (cia factbook on EU)
    In 100 years, the total population will be around 404 million, and the 0-14 age group will be around 41 million.”

    Okay so now the 0-14 group is just over 15% of 492 million.
    The projection for 100 years in the future is just over 10% of 404 million.
    That is a 46% drop and a shrinking share of a shrinking number. Also, the decline in total population is only about 18% whereas the UN projected a decline to 538 million from 728 million which is about a 26% decline. Seems like a big difference especially without immigration whereas the UN may be including immigrants. Not sure what to make of that or what their assumptions were, or why the non-EU European countries would bring it down so much. UN data tables show that there were about 150 million Europeans aged 0-14 in 1985 and predicts about 66 million in 2050. That is a 56% decline. I figure that at some point since 1985 the TFR likely was a little higher than it presently is, but the decline of 56% in only 65 years is greater than the decline you cited over 100 years at a perhaps even lower birthrate. Can you explain that? I mean why would the number fall faster with a higher birthrate in a shorter time than with a lower birthrate over a longer time. Is it just the difference in the countries? EU vs. all of Europe?

    UN data tables:
    http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2

    Hey, thanks for considering my questions.

  • sg

    The following statement confused me:

    “The calculation itself cannot make any predictions about what future years’ numbers will be – it is entirely up to what the researcher things future CBRCDR numbers will be.”

    Okay, the CDR should be straightforward if they haven’t misplaced their mortality rate tables. They know how many folks were born each year, so they know when they will pass away. There are records of immigrants and their ages compiled into reports of ages etc. So, it seems all of that is near certain. CBR obviously is a guess to some extent. However, the number of women at each age is known. So, if they have the same birthrate as women the same age in the immediate past, then one could assume a similar rate. So why would a researcher think they would be different?

    “Thankfully for researchers, CBRCDR numbers don’t change very dramatically, usually. If they change, they typically change in relatively gradual and generally predictable patterns.”

    This is like the last one. I mean the UN report noted that the CDR would go up and then back down here midcentury. I assume that is just based on how many folks there are at a certain age. It is known what percentage of 55 year olds will die each year.

    “One thing that caught some researchers by surprise was in Mexico (I think) the CBR began to drop in a huge way, without any significant changes in wealth or other typical causes; what they finally determined the cause to be was that several telenovelas became extremely popular and all the women in the telenovelas were successful, beautiful, and had very few children.”

    So did the guys think their wives would get richer and better looking if they had fewer kids? 🙂
    Mexico’s TFR is pretty close to 2.0 now. Like other places, the rich have fewer kids and the poor more. They average about 3.0 when they move to the US. Given that Mexico has the greatest wealth disparity on earth, the rich are probably fine letting their poor leave.

    “The equations to use TFR need to take into account the fact that generations overlap and stretch out, and that generations are different sizes. Those can cause a later generation to be larger than the preceding generation even if the preceding generation’s TFR was less than 2.1.”

    How are you using “generation” here? It doesn’t seem like you mean birth cohort, like all the folks born between 2000 and 2020, or some such.

    “Of the current total population of 492,387,344, 75,933,127 are 0-14. (cia factbook on EU)
    In 100 years, the total population will be around 404 million, and the 0-14 age group will be around 41 million.”

    Okay so now the 0-14 group is just over 15% of 492 million.
    The projection for 100 years in the future is just over 10% of 404 million.
    That is a 46% drop and a shrinking share of a shrinking number. Also, the decline in total population is only about 18% whereas the UN projected a decline to 538 million from 728 million which is about a 26% decline. Seems like a big difference especially without immigration whereas the UN may be including immigrants. Not sure what to make of that or what their assumptions were, or why the non-EU European countries would bring it down so much. UN data tables show that there were about 150 million Europeans aged 0-14 in 1985 and predicts about 66 million in 2050. That is a 56% decline. I figure that at some point since 1985 the TFR likely was a little higher than it presently is, but the decline of 56% in only 65 years is greater than the decline you cited over 100 years at a perhaps even lower birthrate. Can you explain that? I mean why would the number fall faster with a higher birthrate in a shorter time than with a lower birthrate over a longer time. Is it just the difference in the countries? EU vs. all of Europe?

    UN data tables:
    http://esa.un.org/unpp/index.asp?panel=2

    Hey, thanks for considering my questions.

  • sg

    “Did you notice that when you used concepts from economics that WebMonk granted you some points?”

    I’ll add it to my collection of Table Talk Radio points. :-/

  • sg

    “Did you notice that when you used concepts from economics that WebMonk granted you some points?”

    I’ll add it to my collection of Table Talk Radio points. :-/

  • sg

    Oops. I meant 🙂

  • sg

    Oops. I meant 🙂

  • sg

    one more thing

    UN data must include immigrants because in 1990 there were 48,260k kids aged 0-4, then in 1995, 48,698k aged 5-9, and in 2000, there were 49,189k aged 10-14.

    I noticed also that from 1990 to 2000 the number of kids aged 0-4 dropped from 48,260k to 36,757k, an almost 25% drop in just 10 years despite immigration.

  • sg

    one more thing

    UN data must include immigrants because in 1990 there were 48,260k kids aged 0-4, then in 1995, 48,698k aged 5-9, and in 2000, there were 49,189k aged 10-14.

    I noticed also that from 1990 to 2000 the number of kids aged 0-4 dropped from 48,260k to 36,757k, an almost 25% drop in just 10 years despite immigration.

  • Nicolas Krebs

    “Will Pew Muslim birth rate study finally silence the “Eurabia” claim?” (Tom Heneghan)

    In my own opinion, the answer is obviously “no”. People making those weird claims will not stop tomorrow. (See also http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/#comment-29290 .)

    “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century” (sg)

    I don’t think so. (This remind me Noam Chomsky’s “Can you become a qualified, highly qualified mechanical and civil engineer and expert in the structure of buildings in a couple of hours on the internet?” about another conspiracy theory.)

    “I suspect that the Pew Report’s primary target is the 2006 book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, a popular work on practically all the points covered in the Pew Report.
    It’s amazing that all the facts and all the math are the same in both Pew and Steyn” (Joanne)

    Well:
    * “the EU’s population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025” (Mark Steyn, February 2005)
    * “The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, [Pew Forum’s report] projects.” (January 2011)

    And the average muslim % in EU is lower than in the whole Europe, about 3% versus about 6%. (That remind me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community .)

  • Nicolas Krebs

    “Will Pew Muslim birth rate study finally silence the “Eurabia” claim?” (Tom Heneghan)

    In my own opinion, the answer is obviously “no”. People making those weird claims will not stop tomorrow. (See also http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2011/01/27/will-pew-muslim-birth-rate-study-finally-silence-the-eurabia-claim/#comment-29290 .)

    “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century” (sg)

    I don’t think so. (This remind me Noam Chomsky’s “Can you become a qualified, highly qualified mechanical and civil engineer and expert in the structure of buildings in a couple of hours on the internet?” about another conspiracy theory.)

    “I suspect that the Pew Report’s primary target is the 2006 book by Mark Steyn, America Alone, a popular work on practically all the points covered in the Pew Report.
    It’s amazing that all the facts and all the math are the same in both Pew and Steyn” (Joanne)

    Well:
    * “the EU’s population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025” (Mark Steyn, February 2005)
    * “The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, [Pew Forum’s report] projects.” (January 2011)

    And the average muslim % in EU is lower than in the whole Europe, about 3% versus about 6%. (That remind me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community .)

  • sg

    “I don’t think so. (This remind me Noam Chomsky’s “Can you become a qualified, highly qualified mechanical and civil engineer and expert in the structure of buildings in a couple of hours on the internet?” about another conspiracy theory.)”

    Classic ad hominem.

    What is your point? Do you think anyone who is not an expert in a particular field, shouldn’t check facts on a simple data table and just read and think? Shall we all listen to self-appointed experts who can’t substantiate their assertions? That is stupid and irresponsible. Did you look at the data tables at the UN? Did you read and think? Or are you just insulting folks for asking questions and trying to understand the views and methods of those with different conclusions?

    My point is that the data tables at the UN do not support that the native European population is falling as slowly as Webmonk contends. I don’t know how exactly he got those numbers, so I am asking. What is it about the current era that so many want a soundbite answer to every question and don’t want to question the answers? Why should we all shut up and take someone else’s word for everything? Given the state of affairs in the USA, it is not a winning strategy.

  • sg

    “I don’t think so. (This remind me Noam Chomsky’s “Can you become a qualified, highly qualified mechanical and civil engineer and expert in the structure of buildings in a couple of hours on the internet?” about another conspiracy theory.)”

    Classic ad hominem.

    What is your point? Do you think anyone who is not an expert in a particular field, shouldn’t check facts on a simple data table and just read and think? Shall we all listen to self-appointed experts who can’t substantiate their assertions? That is stupid and irresponsible. Did you look at the data tables at the UN? Did you read and think? Or are you just insulting folks for asking questions and trying to understand the views and methods of those with different conclusions?

    My point is that the data tables at the UN do not support that the native European population is falling as slowly as Webmonk contends. I don’t know how exactly he got those numbers, so I am asking. What is it about the current era that so many want a soundbite answer to every question and don’t want to question the answers? Why should we all shut up and take someone else’s word for everything? Given the state of affairs in the USA, it is not a winning strategy.

  • sg

    “Well:
    * “the EU’s population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025″ (Mark Steyn, February 2005)
    * “The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, [Pew Forum’s report] projects.” (January 2011)

    And the average muslim % in EU is lower than in the whole Europe, about 3% versus about 6%. (That remind me”

    Okay, given that assumption, we should figure that with the higher muslim birthrate and lower native European rates, then the native population in the EU should fall faster than the total population of all Europe. But that is opposite of what Webmonk said. The UN published their results in their data tables and they do not jibe with what Webmonk said. Now, maybe I overlooked something, that he can explain.

    I do protest at seeing headlines hoping that concerned folks be silenced.

  • sg

    “Well:
    * “the EU’s population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025″ (Mark Steyn, February 2005)
    * “The continent will be about 8 percent Muslim in 2030, [Pew Forum’s report] projects.” (January 2011)

    And the average muslim % in EU is lower than in the whole Europe, about 3% versus about 6%. (That remind me”

    Okay, given that assumption, we should figure that with the higher muslim birthrate and lower native European rates, then the native population in the EU should fall faster than the total population of all Europe. But that is opposite of what Webmonk said. The UN published their results in their data tables and they do not jibe with what Webmonk said. Now, maybe I overlooked something, that he can explain.

    I do protest at seeing headlines hoping that concerned folks be silenced.

  • Muslims post their own videos about the rise of Christianity in Africa:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdVnILalpeo&feature=related

    I wonder if on another thread somewhere a Muslim WebMonk and a Muslim sg are having a math argument over the numbers in that video.

  • Muslims post their own videos about the rise of Christianity in Africa:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdVnILalpeo&feature=related

    I wonder if on another thread somewhere a Muslim WebMonk and a Muslim sg are having a math argument over the numbers in that video.

  • WebMonk

    sg, I didn’t understand what your questions were back up in 50, so I didn’t bother responding.

    But, I did understand when you say my statements don’t jibe with what the UN’s data tables say. What I can’t understand is how you could get something so totally backwards. Everything I wrote was very much in line with the UN’s stuff.

    Maybe because it wasn’t exactly the same you got confused. Let’s try to straighten that out.

    First, I didn’t try to re-make any of the UN’s calculations, so obviously the numbers won’t be exactly the same. Hopefully that’s not what you’re talking about.

    Second, the times I gave specific numbers I very carefully stated that they were extremely simplified calculations just to demonstrate general trends. All those general trends I demonstrated agree with what the UN has in their report here.

    SHOULD I WRITE THOSE DISCLAIMERS IN BOLD ALL-CAPS SO NO ONE CAN MISS THEM?

    Where exactly does something I say diverge wildly from what this report says? I would be really fascinated to find out, because I went back over all my posts here and I can find only a few things that might possibly have direct connections to what the report says, and all those things are pretty much in agreement with the report.

  • WebMonk

    sg, I didn’t understand what your questions were back up in 50, so I didn’t bother responding.

    But, I did understand when you say my statements don’t jibe with what the UN’s data tables say. What I can’t understand is how you could get something so totally backwards. Everything I wrote was very much in line with the UN’s stuff.

    Maybe because it wasn’t exactly the same you got confused. Let’s try to straighten that out.

    First, I didn’t try to re-make any of the UN’s calculations, so obviously the numbers won’t be exactly the same. Hopefully that’s not what you’re talking about.

    Second, the times I gave specific numbers I very carefully stated that they were extremely simplified calculations just to demonstrate general trends. All those general trends I demonstrated agree with what the UN has in their report here.

    SHOULD I WRITE THOSE DISCLAIMERS IN BOLD ALL-CAPS SO NO ONE CAN MISS THEM?

    Where exactly does something I say diverge wildly from what this report says? I would be really fascinated to find out, because I went back over all my posts here and I can find only a few things that might possibly have direct connections to what the report says, and all those things are pretty much in agreement with the report.

  • sg

    “Where exactly does something I say diverge wildly from what this report says?”

    18% drop in 100 years without immigration. Your example

    26% drop in 100 years with immigration. UN projection.

    Also, your 100 year example shows youth drop 46%.

    UN 65 years of data shows youth drop 56%.

  • sg

    “Where exactly does something I say diverge wildly from what this report says?”

    18% drop in 100 years without immigration. Your example

    26% drop in 100 years with immigration. UN projection.

    Also, your 100 year example shows youth drop 46%.

    UN 65 years of data shows youth drop 56%.

  • WebMonk

    sg, you’ve just reached the point where I’m having a hard time believing you’re serious. You must be purposefully misrepresenting things for some reason.

    Did you not notice my statement that I was using just CBR/CDR numbers totally ignoring dozens of other factors?

    Did you somehow miss the several times I stated that the CBR/CDR numbers do NOT take things like immigration/emigration into account?

    You’re complaining about a difference of less than 10 percentage points and saying my (I’ll put this into bold caps just so no one can miss it) SELF-STATED EXTREMELY SIMPLISTIC AND INCOMPLETE EXAMPLE NUMBERS are somehow wildly different than the UN’s study?

    And not only that, but did you notice where I stated I was using CIA Factbook numbers for just the EU rather than the UN’s official numbers which were for all of Europe? (there’s just a minor difference between the two, you know. I realize American are stereotypically bad at geography, but you’re pushing the boundaries of credulity.)

    Given all those differences frankly I’m surprised I was only 44% off on one and only 22% off on the other.

    If you’re not even going to bother paying attention to anything written here, or are just going to toss out completely false claims, why do you keep writing on this topic?

  • WebMonk

    sg, you’ve just reached the point where I’m having a hard time believing you’re serious. You must be purposefully misrepresenting things for some reason.

    Did you not notice my statement that I was using just CBR/CDR numbers totally ignoring dozens of other factors?

    Did you somehow miss the several times I stated that the CBR/CDR numbers do NOT take things like immigration/emigration into account?

    You’re complaining about a difference of less than 10 percentage points and saying my (I’ll put this into bold caps just so no one can miss it) SELF-STATED EXTREMELY SIMPLISTIC AND INCOMPLETE EXAMPLE NUMBERS are somehow wildly different than the UN’s study?

    And not only that, but did you notice where I stated I was using CIA Factbook numbers for just the EU rather than the UN’s official numbers which were for all of Europe? (there’s just a minor difference between the two, you know. I realize American are stereotypically bad at geography, but you’re pushing the boundaries of credulity.)

    Given all those differences frankly I’m surprised I was only 44% off on one and only 22% off on the other.

    If you’re not even going to bother paying attention to anything written here, or are just going to toss out completely false claims, why do you keep writing on this topic?

  • sg

    Gee, Webmonk, seems like an unwarranted amount of emotion for such bland questions.

    Anyway. Your point about the CBRCDR method makes sense, but also makes the point that it doesn’t include some things that are necessary for accuracy, which is your complaint about my quick and dirty estimate.

    Notice that my slap happy calculation was a closer approximation of the decline of the youth by just multiplying the tfr by the number of generations. 65 years is about 3 generations and whaddaya know just multiplying x(.75)(.75)(.75)= .42x which is eerily close to the 56% decline listed in the UN data tables. And yes, I freely admit this ignores the geriatrics, but since they don’t ultimately influence population growth or decline, I focused on those who do namely kids and those having kids.

    The truth is there is no magic. All of the rates of increase and decline are tied to number of women of a certain age, tfr and average age of women when they have children. I included those elements in the way I estimated. Sure, if researchers carefully count heads and either use extensive spread sheets to add them up or use some type of calculation which has the structure of the increase/decrease built into it with a natural log or some such, then of course, you can be more accurate. But I was only making a ballpark estimate based on a tfr of 1.5 which indeed renders a fast decline, but which you argue isn’t the usual method for projecting population growth/decline. Got it.

  • sg

    Gee, Webmonk, seems like an unwarranted amount of emotion for such bland questions.

    Anyway. Your point about the CBRCDR method makes sense, but also makes the point that it doesn’t include some things that are necessary for accuracy, which is your complaint about my quick and dirty estimate.

    Notice that my slap happy calculation was a closer approximation of the decline of the youth by just multiplying the tfr by the number of generations. 65 years is about 3 generations and whaddaya know just multiplying x(.75)(.75)(.75)= .42x which is eerily close to the 56% decline listed in the UN data tables. And yes, I freely admit this ignores the geriatrics, but since they don’t ultimately influence population growth or decline, I focused on those who do namely kids and those having kids.

    The truth is there is no magic. All of the rates of increase and decline are tied to number of women of a certain age, tfr and average age of women when they have children. I included those elements in the way I estimated. Sure, if researchers carefully count heads and either use extensive spread sheets to add them up or use some type of calculation which has the structure of the increase/decrease built into it with a natural log or some such, then of course, you can be more accurate. But I was only making a ballpark estimate based on a tfr of 1.5 which indeed renders a fast decline, but which you argue isn’t the usual method for projecting population growth/decline. Got it.

  • sg

    “And not only that, but did you notice where I stated I was using CIA Factbook numbers for just the EU rather than the UN’s official numbers which were for all of Europe? (there’s just a minor difference between the two, you know. I realize American are stereotypically bad at geography, but you’re pushing the boundaries of credulity.)”

    Yeah, I asked about that. Is the population structure of the EU significantly different from that in all of Europe? If the population structure is similar then the rate of growth/decline should be similar. Or am I missing something?

    I am just asking for an explanation. I am not saying you are wrong. I just don’t see how you can say I am doing it wrong and I will get inaccurate results, and I should do it your more accurate way, but I am off by 2% and you are off by 44% and 22%. So, can you explain? It seems intuitively obvious that tfr is the single most useful number for just getting a ballpark idea of how things are going. The UN data tables include immigrants who are documented to have higher birthrates. So, the further you look in the future, the less they reflect natives and the more the immigrants influence the trend as they represent a growing share of a shrinking group. My point was regarding the decline of the native European population. Can you explain why you think the tfr is less than the most important determining condition?

    Thanks 🙂

  • sg

    “And not only that, but did you notice where I stated I was using CIA Factbook numbers for just the EU rather than the UN’s official numbers which were for all of Europe? (there’s just a minor difference between the two, you know. I realize American are stereotypically bad at geography, but you’re pushing the boundaries of credulity.)”

    Yeah, I asked about that. Is the population structure of the EU significantly different from that in all of Europe? If the population structure is similar then the rate of growth/decline should be similar. Or am I missing something?

    I am just asking for an explanation. I am not saying you are wrong. I just don’t see how you can say I am doing it wrong and I will get inaccurate results, and I should do it your more accurate way, but I am off by 2% and you are off by 44% and 22%. So, can you explain? It seems intuitively obvious that tfr is the single most useful number for just getting a ballpark idea of how things are going. The UN data tables include immigrants who are documented to have higher birthrates. So, the further you look in the future, the less they reflect natives and the more the immigrants influence the trend as they represent a growing share of a shrinking group. My point was regarding the decline of the native European population. Can you explain why you think the tfr is less than the most important determining condition?

    Thanks 🙂

  • Nicolas Krebs

    “What is your point?” (sg)

    I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.

    “Do you think anyone who is not an expert in a particular field, shouldn’t check facts on a simple data table and just read and think?” (sg)

    No. On the contrary, I think that anyone may read books and check facts.

    “Shall we all listen to self-appointed experts who can’t substantiate their assertions?” (sg)

    No. On the contrary, I think that we should not listen to self-appointed experts like Mark Steyn (without critical thinking).

    Did you look at the data tables at the UN? (sg)

    Not yet.

    “Did you read and think?” (sg)

    Yes.

    “are you just insulting folks for asking questions and trying to understand the views and methods of those with different conclusions? ” (sg)

    No.

    “I don’t know how exactly he got those numbers, so I am asking.” (sg)

    Which is a good thing in my opinion.

    “What is it about the current era that so many want a soundbite answer to every question and don’t want to question the answers?” (sg)

    This era? Somebody asking one century ago if Boston is the capital of USA would not have been “soundbite”? Well, maybe I misunderstood you question.

    “Why should we all shut up and take someone else’s word for everything?” (sg)

    I think that we should not. In my opinion, we should not “shut up” and believe blindy America alone, we should not listen sg claiming that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century” without critical thinking.

    “Okay, given that assumption, we should figure that with the higher muslim birthrate and lower native European rates, then the native population in the EU should fall faster than the total population of all Europe. […] Now, maybe I overlooked something, that he can explain.” (sg)

    Indeed. At least the birth rate, the death rate, the fertility rate, are not the same in EU@27 and in european countries which are not part of EU@27.

    “65 years is about 3 generations” (sg)

    No. Look at the (average) european childbearing age.

    “The truth is there is no magic. All of the rates of increase and decline are tied to number of women of a certain age, tfr and average age of women when they have children.” (sg)

    Yes (for the natural grow rate).

  • Nicolas Krebs

    “What is your point?” (sg)

    I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.

    “Do you think anyone who is not an expert in a particular field, shouldn’t check facts on a simple data table and just read and think?” (sg)

    No. On the contrary, I think that anyone may read books and check facts.

    “Shall we all listen to self-appointed experts who can’t substantiate their assertions?” (sg)

    No. On the contrary, I think that we should not listen to self-appointed experts like Mark Steyn (without critical thinking).

    Did you look at the data tables at the UN? (sg)

    Not yet.

    “Did you read and think?” (sg)

    Yes.

    “are you just insulting folks for asking questions and trying to understand the views and methods of those with different conclusions? ” (sg)

    No.

    “I don’t know how exactly he got those numbers, so I am asking.” (sg)

    Which is a good thing in my opinion.

    “What is it about the current era that so many want a soundbite answer to every question and don’t want to question the answers?” (sg)

    This era? Somebody asking one century ago if Boston is the capital of USA would not have been “soundbite”? Well, maybe I misunderstood you question.

    “Why should we all shut up and take someone else’s word for everything?” (sg)

    I think that we should not. In my opinion, we should not “shut up” and believe blindy America alone, we should not listen sg claiming that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century” without critical thinking.

    “Okay, given that assumption, we should figure that with the higher muslim birthrate and lower native European rates, then the native population in the EU should fall faster than the total population of all Europe. […] Now, maybe I overlooked something, that he can explain.” (sg)

    Indeed. At least the birth rate, the death rate, the fertility rate, are not the same in EU@27 and in european countries which are not part of EU@27.

    “65 years is about 3 generations” (sg)

    No. Look at the (average) european childbearing age.

    “The truth is there is no magic. All of the rates of increase and decline are tied to number of women of a certain age, tfr and average age of women when they have children.” (sg)

    Yes (for the natural grow rate).

  • sg

    I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.
    “I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.”

    Okay, why?

  • sg

    I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.
    “I don’t think that “native Europeans have a birthrate so low that they will lose 75% of their population by the end of the century”.”

    Okay, why?

  • sg

    Hmm, not sure why that posted like that. Sorry.

  • sg

    Hmm, not sure why that posted like that. Sorry.

  • Steph

    I bet the birth rates of Muslims will decline in the western world when Muslim women become more educated (the literacy rate in the middle east is pretty bad for women) and can smell freedom from the more male centered world they came from.

  • Steph

    I bet the birth rates of Muslims will decline in the western world when Muslim women become more educated (the literacy rate in the middle east is pretty bad for women) and can smell freedom from the more male centered world they came from.

  • Rober2D2

    Search some graphics, and you may see that muslims birth rate is declining in many countries. Not only that: It is declining really fast, much faster than when the same happened in Europe (Although in Europe it began earlier) . One excellent example is Iran. In 1982, the fertility rate was 6.5 children per woman. In 2009, less than 30 years after, it was 1.7, which is lower than some european countries like France. But the most curious thing is that the decline in Iran’s fertility rate began with the instauration of Ayatolla’s regime. Iran is the most notorious case, but not the only one. In the same period, fertility rate declined from 5.25 to 2.78 in Egypt, 5.42 to 2.31 in Morocco, and 5.02 to 2.09 in Tunissia. In Albania a European country with around 70% of muslims, fertility lowered from 3.94 to 1.56. Looking numbers worldwide, the greatest difference in fertility rate is not between muslims and non-muslims. The big difference is between Africa (with the exception of Magreb and South Africa) and the rest of the world

  • Rober2D2

    Search some graphics, and you may see that muslims birth rate is declining in many countries. Not only that: It is declining really fast, much faster than when the same happened in Europe (Although in Europe it began earlier) . One excellent example is Iran. In 1982, the fertility rate was 6.5 children per woman. In 2009, less than 30 years after, it was 1.7, which is lower than some european countries like France. But the most curious thing is that the decline in Iran’s fertility rate began with the instauration of Ayatolla’s regime. Iran is the most notorious case, but not the only one. In the same period, fertility rate declined from 5.25 to 2.78 in Egypt, 5.42 to 2.31 in Morocco, and 5.02 to 2.09 in Tunissia. In Albania a European country with around 70% of muslims, fertility lowered from 3.94 to 1.56. Looking numbers worldwide, the greatest difference in fertility rate is not between muslims and non-muslims. The big difference is between Africa (with the exception of Magreb and South Africa) and the rest of the world

  • Rober2D2

    sg and WebMonk . Both of your calculations are basically wrong.

    sg: You may suppose that most of today’s inhabitants will be dead by 2100, but in your calculations you supposing that many people that bornbetween today and 2100 will also be dead. First, todays generations are 30 year long, not 20. Second, many people born after 2020 will still be alive by 2100, so a 75% decline in population is simply impossible.

    About your calculations, Webmonk, you can’t suppose that the relation of mortality and birth rate will keep constant. As populations becames older, the population decline will accelerate.

    And finally, I’d like to say that fertility rate will vary in the next 90 years. Supposing it to be constant, may be a nice math exercise, but it’s not at all realistic.

  • Rober2D2

    sg and WebMonk . Both of your calculations are basically wrong.

    sg: You may suppose that most of today’s inhabitants will be dead by 2100, but in your calculations you supposing that many people that bornbetween today and 2100 will also be dead. First, todays generations are 30 year long, not 20. Second, many people born after 2020 will still be alive by 2100, so a 75% decline in population is simply impossible.

    About your calculations, Webmonk, you can’t suppose that the relation of mortality and birth rate will keep constant. As populations becames older, the population decline will accelerate.

    And finally, I’d like to say that fertility rate will vary in the next 90 years. Supposing it to be constant, may be a nice math exercise, but it’s not at all realistic.