I've been sending this article to everybody I can think of that is paying attention to world affairs. Stephen is right - this is likely the most important thing you'll read all year. Steyn marshalls the most important facts and arguments concerning what we face as a society in the next fifty to a hundred years.

My only criticism is that the analysis is on the static side, and that always makes the conclusions suspect. But in this area, I'm not sure anyone has the facts and viewpoint needed to make a good dynamic analysis anyway, so this is the best we've got.

And, of course, if I were giving a speech, I'd keep things simple with a static analysis too. The fact that it's static makes it all the more approachable.

I don't get the "static analysis" criticism of the piece, Billy. Steyn's focus on declining birth rates among Westerners and increasing Muslim populations is all about change: the world the way it is now will never be this way again. Yes, Steyn cites current population growth/decline and immigration figures, but there's really not much point in muddying the waters with conjecture about how those rates are likely to change in the future.

I read things like this and wonder if "the West" as a concept really has a chance to survive this century. I'd like to be an optimist and think that Europe will come to its collective senses, but I don't think they make rose-colored glasses that powerful. But at least we've got people like Steyn & Stephen out there banging on this drum; when dhimmitude happens, it won't come as a surprise.

Not so fast, read the "open letter" post. After Iran nukes Israel, old-Europe will have to reconsider it's position on dhimmitude.

ayup yup yup... not new information (well, at least not if you've lived in e. europe), but there's no question but that he lays it out like a giant, rolling iron wheel....

Well, at least Kyoto would be off our back w/the nuclear winter Iran would provide...............and gets rid of the pesky pali problem to boot.

And some Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians.......

Joan, static analysis means the trend lines are projected to be more or less linear and isolated. A dynamic analysis would begin to look at interactions between the trends that would change each trend and how the trends themselves would vary over time.

A textbook example of static analysis is when a journalist talks about how much tax cuts "cost". He's almost always linearly extrapolating how much of the current revenue will be lost because of the tax rate reduction. He's not taking into account the fact that the tax cut might fuel growth, thus expanding the tax base, which might therefore cause the revenue collected to exceed what a simple static analysis would project. Taking the growth prospects into account is a dynamic analysis.

There are so many factors in what Steyn discusses that there are guaranteed to be additional interactions that he's not accounting for. For example, one of the side effects of lack of economic opportunity is Europe (due to the trends mentioned by Steyn) is that there's a trend of people leaving Europe to come to America. It's often referred to as the "brain drain". This could have severe non-linear effects on the other trends. It could hasten bad trends in Europe, and lessen bad trends here. So a bad trend in Europe could feed back to have a positive influence over here.

That kind of analysis is hellishly complex, because the number of potential interactions goes up much faster than the number of trends. It's also mostly guesswork as to what trends will feed back on other trends unless you have historical examples to guide you. That's why you don't see it done very often. Heck, journalists don't even do it for tax cuts (though we may reasonably conclude that some don't do it because they wouldn't like the conclusions).

So you can't rely too much on an analysis such as Steyn's. It's good, of course, because he's one smart fellow. But it lacks any dynamic interaction analysis because it would be impossible for him to do. His guesses of outcomes are probably a pretty decent first approximation, and ought to make us eager to see what we can do to deal with those outcomes. But the system he's predicting is so chaotic that any detailed prediction is guaranteed to be wrong in particulars, and may be wildly wrong.

Billy: if you'd just said up front that Steyn failed to apply the principles of system dynamics to the issues at hand, I would've had a clue as to what you're talking about. I first learned about system dynamics and feedback loops more than 20 years ago back at the Sloan School. (God, I'm dating myself.) The biggest problem with dynamic systems is that they are a bitch to define and explain, and the analyses thereof are exponentially more complex as a result.

Your points about the complexity of the relationships among the issues Steyn is discussing are valid, of course, but I'll maintain that your criticism of his analysis is akin to ordering a glass of apple juice and then complaining because you didn't get the entire orchard. You yourself admit that the level of analysis you're looking for is much too complex for most journos and is way beyond the scope of a Steyn op-ed: it's a bloody PhD thesis, and you know it.

The bottom line is, Steyn's "first pass" approximation on the Death of the West is as accurate and compelling a prediction as anything you are likely to read, ever. Remember that the purpose of an op-ed is not merely to enlighten but also to persuade, or in some cases, scare the pants off, the reader.

Don't knock Steyn for failing to deliver something that was never his purview. Finally, let me say I'm sorry if this is coming off as snippy; I have an impression that you think you needed to school me, and it has rubbed my fur the wrong the way.

I think that complex systems like this can't be effectively modeled. Think of modeling today's energy picture 100 years ago, with radically different energy sources and uses. Or think of modeling strongly non-linear functions with delayed feedback. The math just doesn't predict the future for 100 years.

Predictions like this may be adequate for 10 years or a generation. Beyond that, major new things can happen (a major new religion, major war, even the singularity, ...).

I don't think you predict these things -- I think you must surf them, being alert to what is happening, and changing what you are doing when the underlying structure changes.

So, Steyn's analysis is just fine for its purpose. Get the surfers' heads up to see the incoming wave.

It was around this time four years ago that a book was published on this topic, which quickly zoomed to the top of the bestseller list (thanks in part to Matt Drudge). I was concerned about it at the time, that the book was too extreme, and would be blasted as such. As it turns out, it was praised by many critics, and has made it into the encyclopedia. I am glad to now see that other columnists (even neoconservatives) are taking the same positions.

I got thrown out of the Sloan school for selling weed, but I'm clairvoyant; would that help?

Joan, I thought I was being polite to take the time for a complete answer. Sorry you didn't see it that way.

Billy, no need to apologize -- you didn't do anything wrong at all, and I'm sure your long reply was helpful to anyone unfamiliar with system dynamics. I apologized for my tone because I knew my snippiness was baseless.

OK, Steyn is making some serious points about the lack of "cultural self-confidence" in parts of the West, and the demographic problems of Europe in particular.
But he tends to weaken his own analysis by exagerration sometimes.

An example. Steyn says "In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week."
Not so.
Maybe, if ALL the c. 1.5 million self-identified Muslims all attend mosque each Friday (which I doubt), that beats the Church of England at about a million each Sunday; but not the combined Christian Churches.
(Or even the Anglicans alone if you take attendance once a month figures of 1.7 million. Never mind the 40 million odd who attend at least once a year.)
On broader demographic trends take France as an example.
Current Muslim population c.7%
IF current rates of Muslim increase (immigration and reproduction combined)continue at 2% per annum
AND non-Muslims decline at 0.5% per annum
THEN after 50 years Muslim population is 20% of total, after roughly a century 50%.

Both assumptions are unlikely. Immigrant decendant birthrates almost always fall off from initial levels.

Steyn is correct that Europeans and the American left need to be more realistic about assimilation problems, welfare systems, the need to deal with the sources of radical Islamism in the madrassas etc.
But his assertions seem almost to mirror in their bleakness those of the appeasers and environmentalists he (reasonably) criticises. We may face specific environmental problems, such as local water shotages, but not the catastrophe the Greens prophesy. Similarly, the West faces challenges, but not, I think, Steyn's vision of a quiet Apocalyse.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Things Change

If things continue on their current course, I would expect Mark's comments to be 'spot on'. But then again, who, of the early 20th Century, except maybe an American, would recognize the world today?

Great Britain, France and Germany are NOT the greatest powers in the world? Who'd a thunk it?

What this?!?!? Israel EXISTS!!!!! Signs of the coming apocalypse!

Things, including the geosphere, change. Even this 'global warming' business. Did you know that towards the end of the Dark Ages, the global average temp was several degrees above where we were in the 80s? Must have been all that slash and burn agronmics. And, would you believe it, things were BETTER. Longer growing seasons. More food. Not so harsh in Winter.

Things will change again by the end of this century. The question is, whether it will be for the 'better' or the 'worse', and who gets to define those terms.

If nothing else changes in the current geo-political spheres-of-influence, surely Europe as we know it today will disappear.

RE: Mark Steyn vs Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

But, as I've commented so oft in the past here, and elsewhere, things are probably going to change on an even more profound level than most people are willing to accept.

I'm expecting the arrival of 'Sky Captain', before we get to the World of Tomorrow described by Mr. Steyn. Or maybe shortly thereafter. It's hard to say.

Regards,

Chuck(le)