JW, I've taken a quick look at the articles linked above and see no statistical analysis much less a refutation of any thesis proposed by Steyn. Being a professional mathematician with a smattering of statistical training, I think I would recognize it. Now the only thing I've seen in this quick review is the assertion that European populations continue to grow at least until the early 2020's before any decline would take place. Is this the refutation you claim to exist? A little thought will show that it isn't. However, Steyn's central thesis appears to be that European social democratic systems create and enable social pathologies in immigrant populations; particularly immigrant Muslim communities. To respond as Hari did by dismissing him as an "uneducated", "ex-disk jockey" and by hyperbolically insinuating that he's a racist - an all-purpose epithet that's lost it's true meaning - is simply to avoid the argument. In reading Hari, I see various rhetorical tricks (i.e. he's conservative, he's funny, so too is Ann Coulter, ergo . . .) but less substance than I would expect from someone so well educated at King's College.

Now I noticed that the title of your post is "What the Eurabia Myth might say about the American Right". Well, beyond confirming your own prejudices concerning "THE" American Right, do tell.

JW, it is hard to avoid generalizations isn't it? But there it is in your title. Now my challenge was meant more to tweak or tease than to provoke. Never-the-less, I think you're being a bit coy here. When you use "might" or "may" you suggest the possible affirmation as well as the negation. You can't have one without the other.

I suspect that it's a mistake to try to draw any conclusion about "the" American Right from Steyn's or any other polemic just as it would be regarding "the" American Left. The difficulty in defining either, speaks to their diversity. And from what I've read about the book - not having read it myself (full disclosure) I would be unsurprised to learn that the readership comes from a broader spectrum than most are willing to acknowledge. Whether they all agree with what they read is quite another matter.

Again, from what I've read about the book, Steyn apparently uses demography as a means to provoke and as a pad from which to launch a cultural and political critique of western societies. Use of demography for this purpose is hardly new, and in its more prosaic forms is very much a part of many current discussions: think US Social Security and Medicare systems. Like it or not, demography plays a significant role in determining social/political and economic dynamics. A gross generalization but with some merit: A population skewed toward the young is more "vital" in many ways, and the youth of that society more influential. Again, think of the US and the baby-boom cohort as it passed from youth to adulthood. While not the majority of the population at any time, that cohort has enjoyed an out sized influence, in particular in their youth, at least in part because of the demographic bulge they represent. Now, if as Steyn apparently suggests, there is a mini-boom among a segment of the population in Europe that is not well assimilated and to some degree alienated from the surrounding culture, and remains so through their youth, the future might not be Eurabia - an amusingly colorful term - but seems likely to be quite different from today. But how? That would be the question wouldn't it?

If as some suggest, Steyn's tract is that of a hidden or not so hidden bigot, then have at it. But don't dismiss the general argument solely because a bigot has pronounced it. Steyn's arguments stand or fall on their own, not because Steyn is or isn't a disreputable figure. Over the years there have been many mathematicians who were s.o.b's (Ludwig Bieberbach would qualify), but we don't dismiss their mathematics because of their moral failings. And to be clear, JW, I'm not suggesting you have done this, but I have the sense that other contributors here may have an "itchy trigger finger" so to speak.

JW,
Uh, oh. Giving me a chance to put on the noose and step on the trap are you? Ok, I may be dangling like a misplaced participle in a moment, but here is my suggestion: "What the Eurabian Myth says about the American Right?" Nothing wrong with echoing a critical passage in the text printed below the headline; it seems like a good idea to me. But as you made clear in your first response to my original post, you want to be understood as questioning the passage below; hence your choice of "might" in the headline. However, given that Hari clearly expresses an opinion and a generalization, I would want to separate myself a much as possible from that; which is why I was tweaking you. Phrasing the headline as a question clearly suggests, at least to me, that you are posing a question to your readers without expressing an opinion yourself. There, I've donned my noose and await my fate.

I won't dispute the reasoning behind the original assertion of your intent. However, language isn't entirely about logic. I've had this discussion several times with my closest of mathematical collaborators who was born and raised in Austria. In general, he writes better mathematically related prose in English than I have ever managed. And yet, there have been times...