There is a trend followed very closely in robotics about the number of elderly people per worker. The larger that ratio gets, the more we'll need robots. And not in 30 years -- in 15 years. We need to support the baby boomers. They'll be 70+ in 7 years. It's even worse in Japan.

The cultural landscape will also change significantly. The Muslim minorities might not be minorities for long. This is a change of epic proportions.

And the "muslim minority" stuff is just alarmist (and, frankly, semi-racist) political spin. Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society, with at most a unique subculture. This is true of all cultures. They're malleable.

No one freaks out (here in the US) about the Polish Menace any more, nor about what all those greasy catholics (!) are going to do to our society, nor about all that lucre under the control of The Jew, nor about what will happen if we allow those awful Blacks to wed (!) our pure, white daughters.

Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few muslims going to accomplish? :)

The saddest thing is how many of the people freaking out over things like muslim immigration (or, here in the US, mexicans) are grandchildren of people who saw exactly the same kind of discrimination.

Islam is not a race.

> Past the third generation, minorities stop being minorities. They become culturally indistinguishable from the overall society

Where are you from? This has not been the case with Muslims in Europe at large.

> Do you see the point? In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to look equally dumb. If all that scary stuff didn't kill us, what are a few muslims going to accomplish?

How much do you know about Islam and its history? Islam and the Western culture are fundamentally incompatible.

False. I rode a bike around Brussels, Belgium. To see the famous Comic book/Tin Tin murals. I got lost. It was scary to venture into the Muslim/Asian ghettos (ghetto defined here as a location in a city where a minority group lives because of social, economic, or legal pressures). I definitely felt like an outsider (and cursed not having a GPS). The opposite of a touristy-area.

> Where are you from? This has not been the case with Muslims in Europe at large.

Premature. The third generation is generally less than ten years old at this point.

The same is true now, it's just the faces that have changed. I know quite a few muslims, actually, of varying levels of religious devotion and professional development. You might be surprised to learn that none of them are terrorists or militants. I dare say I know more about Islam than you do, honestly.

Huh? Try as far back as the Gallic Wars. There has been a concept of The West for over 1500 years.

You are aware of the Crusades?

Once we set up social institutions (like Social Security in the states, for instance) we make certain assumptions about the way the population numbers are going to behave. If we're wrong, or in the case of the U.S. if we keep making promises we can't keep, then those social contracts become null and void. That's a huge implication for the average citizen. I'd even use the word "crisis".

The Japan-medical-robot story in particular is interesting, as it follows along with the general meme of building our way out of our problems. I'm a huge fan of immigration from all corners, but having said that I'm not sure if replacing, say, 50% of your country's population is such a good thing for all of those social promises you made -- the new management might have much different ideas of what is equitable and what isn't.

So yes, having less kids is a big problem for the Europeans. It's not the end of mankind, but I'm not sure it was played up as such, was it?

Well, sure, I guess. Or, you know, we could just pay people 80% of what they expected and call it even. That number is actually about right for a minimum payout if you look at the demographics, after that the baby boom will be out of the system and we'll be back at a steady state.

Is that really a crisis? It's certainly not a "null and void" social security policy. There seems to be an argument coming from some segments of society (interestingly, identical with the ones that want to eliminate the social security entitlement) that it we can't pay every penny of the social security obligations that ZOMGWTF the system will collapse. It's just not true. We'll manage. "Null and void" indeed.

It might not mean a lot to you or me, but to a lot of people 80% of a promise is no promise at all -- especially folks on fixed incomes who are unable to work for themselves.

But once again, we're not talking the merits of the points made, just some possible hyperbole in my response.

It actually betrays a good bit of naivete about the history of the world to think such changes don't matter.

And you clearly underestimate the effects of an aging population. Look at the numbers. They are staggering.

In the US, yes. In Europe it's the other way around. First generation immigrants work, second generation becomes antisocial and militant. Look at France.

> This is true of all cultures. They're malleable.

Definition of "malleable": can be flattened by hammering.

Excuse me? Black people are culturally indistinguishable from white people in the USA? And the whole miscegenation thing is still very real; try to name some onscreen romances between blacks and whites, and witness the backlash against the Super Bowl ad with Terrell Owens and a white woman.

False. Native Americans and Hispanics do not fully assimilate in the United State, ever. We have five generations of data. Globally there are many other examples. In fact, the data show that after the third generation Hispanic educational attainment regresses. You cannot compare what's happening now to the past experience in the US of assimilating waves of western European ethnicities. At the very least there's the critical difference of very long periods of virtually zero immigration in the past.

> In 50 years, all this "ZOMG Muslims!" mania is going to look equally dumb.

In France in the 1890s there was a bunch of alarmism about how the German birthrate was so much higher and this posed a big threat. Of course, it all blew over and Germany never ever bothered France again and the alarmists looked dumb.

> No one freaks out (here in the US) about the Polish Menace any more, nor about what all those greasy catholics...

There is a certain fundamental incompatibility between The West and Islam. There are a lot of Hindus in the West, you know, and nobody really has big issues with them. The comparison to Catholic immigration is ridiculous. You can sing "It's a Small World" all you want, but back here in the real world there are deep differences between cultures.

Oh yeah, I'm also American. I'm a practicing Muslim, raised in a western culture, contributing to western society, and fitting right in...

I'm really disappointed to see some of the hate and prejudice that plagues the ignorant portion of the offliners here on HN - I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!

In my opinion (as a theist, but not an adherent of any religion) anyone who believes in the quran or old testament deserves to be shunned.

Those books (and yes, I've read english translations of both) are full of hate mongering vitriol. They urge 'believers' to gruesomely kill anyone who disagrees with their particular set of outlandish beliefs (even if the non-believer doesn't do anything to harm you).

So yes, a priori I do discount Jews and Muslims. Frankly, if you choose to associate yourself with the sort of racist, misogynistic, intolerant tripe that permeates the torah and quran, I place you on about the same level as neo-nazis and book burners. You should be allowed to spew whatever bullshit you want, but you're a moron and will be treated accordingly.

Just so we're clear, I'm all in favor of religion (or atheism, or agnosticism) in principle. I'm just strongly against any world view and philosophy that demands you kill people who disagree with you, but aren't trying to harm you.

But, I've never really gotten a good answer on which parts of the said holy books followers are free to disregard.

Can I ignore anything I disagree with and still be considered an X? If so, what meaning does X really have and why should I consider myself an X? If not, then who gets to decide which parts of the holy book I can ignore, and by what authority?

The 'party line' that I usually receive is that every word of the holy books is true, but we must interpret it properly. However, there are huge portions of the the old testament and quaran that unambiguously advocate violence and intolerance (I can dig up example if you like). They really don't leave much room for interpretation.

To the best of my knowledge, religions/philosophies have a core set of beliefs that define them. I understand that there is some latitude, but once you stray a certain distance from a religion's core, I'd argue you are no longer a member of that religion. And, based on my readings of the quaran and old testament, I'd say that violence and intolerance are part of the core of islam and judaism.

By way of analogy, libertarians hold a very wide spectrum of beliefs. For example, two libertarians could disagree on whether or not elementary schools should be publicly funded. But, when one of them contends that all private profit should be taken and redistributed, I'd posit that he's no longer a libertarian because he has strayed too far from the core principles.

I agree. Once you sufficiently liberalize a religion, say, by being a Christian that believes there are ways to paradise without ever having a personal relationship with your Lord, Jesus Christ, I fail to see the point. But, there are very many people that arbitrarily pick and choose beliefs. So even if it seems improper to us to pick and choose beliefs, that is just how it is.

>And, based on my readings of the quaran and old testament, I'd say that violence and intolerance are the core of islam and judaism.

I won't speak for your interpretation of Islam, but your interpretation of Judaism is wrong. You can't read a religion's book and claim to know everything about that religion. The ancient Hebrews existed at a time when tribal violence was a way of life. They genocided/smited their enemies with the help of God and wrote about it. They have mellowed considerably since then, depending on how you feel about Israel.

There are thousands of years of interpretation since the books were originally written. In Judaism, interpretation of the Bible is sometimes considered as valid as the Bible itself. So Judaism was reformed over time by people interpreting the Bible and publishing their interpretations. The Talmud is probably the most important of these Jewish Biblical interpretations, but there have been many since. If you want to gain an understanding of Judaism, you can't just read the Old Testament and call it a broken religion that advocates violence and intolerance.

At that point any reasonable person would say something along the lines of: "You know what, this book isn't very good. It may have been decent x years ago, and it does have some good ideas, but on balance it isn't that good. Let's keep the good stuff, throw out the bad, and come up with a new canon based on the best thinking of today."

But that isn't what happened. Islam and Judaism have chosen to keep their deeply flawed books at the center of their religions (and yes, they are the center). And we still have wackos using the text in these books to justify their violence and bigotry.

So, until Jews and Muslims openly disavow huge potions of the torah and quaran, I have very little respect for them.

Constantine, King David, Shinto Imperialists, or whatever, come along and write books as part of a social control program, and people shrug and do what they were doing. See how Catholicism in South America is rife with rituals of native origin, different from the European pagan ones.

But Islam is a bit different. Islam was fairly clearly articulated by well documented real people (I personally don't think Jesus even existed) who spread their beliefs through military conquest. Islam is unambiguously defined by the koran, both theologically and in practice, in a way not true of most other faiths. The historical experience of the Caliphate and the enforcement of Islamic law is quite different. The historical actions of Islamic states have corresponded well to the precepts of the koran.

> I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?"

It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities.

> I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!

At this stage in the game the open minded position is one that acknowledges the realities of world cultures and human history. The closed minded position is unthinking acceptance of the multi-cultural mantras.

What I would like to hear is Muslim "moderates" clarifying is this so or not. Its one thing for them to say its hysteria, another thing if they say that and yet believe in supremacy.

Islam calls for the presence of an Islamic state, which may live in coexistence with other non-Islamic states in peace. Within the Islamic state, all Muslims are held to the Islamic laws, but non-Muslims are free to practice and preach their own religions. Muslims are required to serve in the army of said Islamic state, whereas non-Muslims aren't allowed to - they pay an extra tax (Islamic tax is 2.5%) instead. So long as the tax is paid, they are considered to be full citizens and have most rights (with some rights related to the Islamic-religion obviously excepted).

Islam (in the Quran) does say to kill the "disbelievers," but this is almost always immediately followed by conditionals. Generally, the conditionals will refer to "those that have invoked violence upon you" and "those that have taken your lands or people from you." And then it's directly followed on most occasions by another statement: "And God doesn't forbid you from making peace with those that aren't fighting you and haven't taken your property."

So Islam demands the presence of a non-Secular entity (not dis-similar to the Vatican) which gives preference to Muslims, but does not require that there be a "Islamic World Order" and domination of the planet. Within the Islamic empire, non-Muslims are free to practice their own religions and their rights to do so are protected by Islam and outside its boundaries other countries are obviously free to do whatever they like so long as there are no transgressions - just like modern politics dictates.

It's important to note that in the history of the Islamic empire, there were great periods of tolerance and coexistence with the non-Muslim world. Take, for instance, Jerusalem when it was handed off from Christian hands to the Caliph Omar some 15 years after the spread of Islam. They would trust it to one other than the Caliph himself, and it was understood & accepted by both sides that it would remain - like the rest of the Islamic empire at the time (with the city of Makkah, where only Muslims are allowed to reside, being the exception) - open for Christians and Muslims alike without fear of religious prosecution or interference - and so it did.

It sounds slightly troubling.

1. There is no crisis. Certain conditions produce certain effects. When smallpox is introduced into a population, the population declines, but subsequent generations resist it. The modern world has a perfectly consistent effect on population size, roughly the same as smallpox. The fittest, as always, will survive, and subsequent generations will not have the same problem.

2. The United States is not a "sparkling exception", if you correct your samples. If you reduce Americans to their European subset, you see that Birth rate was 11.6 for Non-Hispanic Whites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... ... the lowest of all major groups.

3. The subject of immigration should not come up. Europe will not "save itself" by replacing itself with North Africans. This point warrants no discussion. If you hate Europe as much as the editors of the nytimes, that's another matter, and it's a valid viewpoint to the degree that it is open. It's not open, of course.

4. Europe and Japan are both far too crowded. As long as the situation isn't treated like a crisis, with hopeless policies (mass immigration, mass boondoggles) the long-term effect will be positive.

5. Three big groups who've reversed the trend: Mormons, Albanian muslims, and Ultra-orthodox Jews. A portend of things to come, and it's no surprise that the nytimes is troubled by the situation resolving itself.

Perhaps - just perhaps - people facing a massive die off due to something like smallpox might view it as a crisis.

What is viewed as the "crisis" in places like Italy, is that people do want to have children, but feel they can't, because of the many reasons cited in the article.

First, "There is no crisis" refers to birthrates, not smallpox. Second, by "crisis" I mean existential crises, not personal. Even the black plague was not an existential crisis. For comparison, the Ottoman and Mongol expansions were.

because of the many reasons

Every western country has had its birthrate drop as the economy and education levels improved. It's a very solid correlation, and almost certainly the real reason. But people still say, "I can't afford children" (or whatever), even if the real reason is their large and distracting discretionary income. People rationalize, and certainly don't understand their own motivations.

Clearly it's a complex issue, but the whole point of the article is that the birth rate varies quite a bit from country to country: Japan and Italy have very low rates, places like France and Sweden do better.

2. If you reduce Americans to the wealthiest subset, you'd see the same trend. Historically, if you reduced Americans to their non-Irish subset, you'd see the same thing, because the Irish were the poor immigrant group of the time.

3. Europe isn't a thing. Very few people even think of themselves as Europeans. Well, so far anyway. I hold out hope the EU will gain currency. What's important is still national identity, and European countries have survived waves of immigration before.

4. Agreed. This isn't a crisis until population levels dip quite a bit more.

5. Mormons, albanian muslims, and ultra-orthodox jews haven't reversed any trend. Their birthrates are (roughly) constant. It's everyone else whose birthrate declined.

But that's not the unit (average children per woman) that they use in the article, and there isn't an obvious conversion between the two (is there?). So this isn't enough information to compare how the birth rate among Americans of European descent compares to the birth rate in Europe itself... which I agree would be interesting.

Edit: I also agree about it being tiring to even skim that article. I do love it, though, when apocalpytic crises directly contradict each other. Weren't we all going to die because of exponential population growth?

While the Times article certainly has an alarmist tone, American fertility rates are an anomaly in the industrialized world.

Not to be offtopic: I also don't consider it a crisis. Population aging, yes, that's a problem, but between current birth rate and imigration that's not a problem. As for all the issues imigration brings: talk about them directly, and the solutions will be much more apparent then blaming everything on birthrate.

(Offended europhiles -- I kid, I kid! Also, this quip is not original, but I can't recall where I'd first read it.)

Birth control and education are like a virus that impacts fertility. Over time we will adapt. It used to the sex drive was enough to reproduce, in the future the specific desire to HAVE kids will replace that.

So the population will drop, then slowly turn around, but it will not end up in a balance. What you'll have is wealthy educated citizens of liberal democracies who absolutely have got have lots of kids.

We better have colonized space then.

Where is the crisis now ?

(I'd started to write a long answer adressing this topic but it would have been too long. If you want to digg into this matter I'll follow you).

The much enhanced birthrate of Muslims in Europe does therefore present us with a serious question as to how Europe will change as a result of this once Muslims are democratically able to alter national goals and cultural norms. This is nothing to do with racism or bigotry.

Islam, like all of the major world religions, has shown remarkable flexibility in adapting to the societies where it has spread. One way you can pretty easily see this is that despite the four countries with the largest Muslim populations not being in the Middle East or northern Africa, "muslim" culture, in this context, is almost always referring to those regions.

Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the recently immigrated people as well. Therefore, they include the muslims people. If everything above is true, and the birthrates are still low, then the article contradicts itself when it says : "[...] — mostly Muslim — who have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning [...]".

It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't have as much childs as we fear. Whatever the reality is, there is a logical fallacy somewhere.

Since the science of demography knowns only 2 factors : (1) birthrates (2) migration flows (wich are continuous), we are left with the only other explaination.

Maybe you understand now why you are deluding yourself if you study demographics without considering the whole world population, because this is what is feeding the migration flows. Whatever the laws you pass, you won't be able to stop people from all over the world to try to escape their life of misery, people who have such hopes for a better life that they take insane risks to make it and more than often die in the journey. The first waves of US immigrants were people fleeding oppression too.

But the true problem isn't even here. The demographic doxa wich states that we should have everlasting high birthrates is closely tied the Economic Growth paradigm, and it is the true responsible for the great post-war immigration policies that european countries engaged in. This doxa (more people = more consumers = more taxpayers = more economic growth) is the true responsible for the situation you describe. If you're looking for an ennemy, then fight this doxa.

Maybe we can live in a world where "less is more". Malthus would have been probably right if he lived today : our earth has limited ressources and our problems are just starting as a lot of emerging countries are catching up with the Occidental lifestyle. A lot of our current problems could be solved by having less people around (from education to transportation and ravaged landscapes).

Even if our technology allows us to make it, there is no philosophical nor practical reason to be 20 billions on earth instead of 6 or 3 or even 1. Especially if the conditions of life are greater, common sense would suggest less quantity for more quality. Less misery in black Africa, less hopeless immigrants, and why not, less malls in Occident.

The more people reproduces in poor countries, the more they'll take their shot at trying to reach richer countries. That's just, well, human. In trying to produce too much wealth, the process just becomes destructive for the cultures at some point and benefits to nobody.

for example, could someone clarify/explain the following:

"Since (all ?) europeans countries birthrates are agnostics, they include the recently immigrated people as well."

"It appears on the contrary, according to our low birthrates, that they don't have as much childs as we fear."

"This doxa (more people = more consumers = more taxpayers = more economic growth) is the true responsible for the situation you describe. If you're looking for an ennemy, then fight this doxa."

I'm going to assume english isn't your native language. Please try to express whatever it is you were trying to express again. It reads like it was (poorly) translated by a machine.

I'll only explain the birthrates part, after a good night of sleep :)

The article states that muslims "have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning", wich roughly translates to : they make a lot of babies and will outnumber us in a few generations. This is a recurring argument.

But the article warns about the low birthrates in Europe. This is a contradiction, because europeans birthrates include the babies of everybody, including the recently immigrated people, wich means that if the muslims were making as much babies as they say, then our birthrates would not be so low.

There is a logical fallacy in this argument. Wich is confirmed by the fact that nearly all muslims societies are experiencing a decline in their birthrate, and some have even "catastrophic" (it's their word, not mine) low birthrates (Iran for example).

I hope it was clear.

A sarcastic thought just popped into my head. To make a snide remark: at least we Europeans don't do "Procreation for recreation."

I could not agree more.