Here's a little point - Muslims are looked down upon in Russia, they are considered poor, ignorant, from the stans etc, and are viewed with the same contempt city Russians have for country folk. A russian i know said Borat was an accurate portrayal of Kazakhs. Why would there be large scale conversions to a religion that may lower ones social status vis-a-vis ones peers?

Why would there be large scale conversions to a religion that may lower ones social status vis-a-vis ones peers?

the 'large scale conversion' meme is the most tiresome of them all. it is generally concocted out of thin air from what i can see. at least extrapolations of differential population growth rates have something to grasp onto.

The Eurabia right became a little obsessed with the trivial fact of Litvinenko's conversion. The very idea of conversion seems to haunt them like it might a Muslim fundamentalist.

Daniel should of course know better - his father, Richard, is an expert on Russian history and has uncovered interesting facts digging around obscure Russian archives, although he is extremely biased when opinionating. Daniel gets carried away with the emotional narrative going on in his brain a lot.

Note the ridiculous stats offered: "There were no Islamic religious schools in 1991 and today there are between 50 and 60, teaching as many as 50,000 students. The number of Russians going on the hajj each year, has jumped from 40 in 1991 to 13,500 in 2005. He quotes a Russian commentator predicting that within the next several decades there will be a mosque on Red Square."

Hmmmm... now that couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that communism barely allowed travel, religious freedom etc? Or the fact that travel has become infinitely cheaper? The last sentence adds nothing of substance, and serves only to dim the intellect with a foggy but 'symbolic' vista, probably to discourage further interrogation of the stats just read.

He says the orthodox church is in freefall, yet razib has pointed to stats showing the number of orthodox adherents has increased exponentially since 91. And the birthrate stats offered from Dagestan, 1.8 vs 1.3, are pretty trivial. They ignore the important conversions that actually say something about Russian society (Putin & Yeltsin), while hyping the irrelvant ones (Litvinenko)

And what about this from the demographer quoted: "Some think that France will be the first European country in modern times to be taken over by Muslims due to her very large, violent immigrant population and effeminate native populace."

Thuggish, value laden language, the primary indicatior of bias. A dumb caricature of the average Frenchman.

Russian patronimic names offer an indication of the massive infusion of Muslim peoples into the Russian mainstream. for example, Islamov, Karimov, etc. Russians are a WeAreTheBorg kind of assimilating people (I mean it as a compliment).

Islamov, Karimov

sure, but don't most muslims in the former soviet use the suffixes like -ov in their names? in any case, i know that a non-trivial proportion of the turkic muslim elite which remained in the russian empire was absorbed into the boyar class.

If you're feeling tolerant of teasing, may I compliment you on the brilliant Freudian slip, in an Islamic context, of "hand-waiving"? :)

LOL. tx.

Like with the French, the Islamic Russia scenario seems to unite both the anti-muslim and anti-european-continent bias of the Anglosphere media. Russophobia is very acceptable among the western chatterati (barely disguised as anti-Putinism), and it seems to unite left (Chechnya, not-keen-on-gays) and right (Iraq, Iran, locking up/intimidating those saintly oligarchs, charging the market equilibrium price for gas). Actual facts about Russia, a complex but decent nation, are ignored. There are exceptions, like the great and wise (being unsarcastic, he's gotten so many things right it's frightening) Simon Jenkins. So the river of confusion about Russia inevitably flooded the Eurabist valley.

As has even been noted by many of his 'comrades' on the right, people like Mark Steyn seem to revel in the supposed Islamification of Europe, it simultaneously satisfies their Islamophobia* and their hatred of the cultures of 'Old Europe' that marginally refuse to bow to McDonaldization, a kind pox on both your houses. Russopobia is sister to the mad Francophobia (freedom fries etc) that gripped the Anglosphere when Monsieur Chirac refused to back the retarded Iraq campaign.

*For those who may comment on my use of the term Islamophobia, I'm not an idenity-politiker, I think Europe is better off not importing low-IQ North/west Africans - but I believe IQ is more important than culture when it comes to immigration (within limits, saturation, resentment at brown/yellow market dominant minorities emerging, unfairly sucking up the 2% African smart fraction etc).

razib - i don't mean to divert the discussion away from the central issue, Russia's Islamification. just fleshing out the wider dynamics relating to coverage of Russia.

no worries. your point is well taken and i tend to lean toward that sentiment. even when i was more sympathetic to the likes of steyn i found their unconcealed glee at the problems of 'old europe' bizarre. i do have a hypothesis that in the united states the sentiment issues from the association of the right with the evangelical subculture which revels in its self-perception as an isolated and redeemed light amongst the heathens. though the conservative elite of new york city are not evangelical themselves, i think attitudes of europhobia are easy to hold when you look with suspicion upon a continent which rejected the radical reformation.

Interesting points, never thought of the evangelical component to it in depth before, as the eurabist types tend to be neocon and jewish, but you're right to term it a subculture. I'm reminded of the conversation between Richard Dawkins and Ted Haggard: Haggard goes on a completely irrelevant rant against the Islamification of Europe, to Dawkins confusion, but it aptly showed what's on their mind when they daydream, those euro's getting their commupance for effeminite atheism!

In Britain it obviously stems more from its complex and antagonistic historical relationship with the continent, 'perfidious albion', 'Britain has no friends, only interests' etc. Britain's enemies on the continent appear to be what economists would term 'substitutable goods,' france one minute, germany the next, now russia - coke & pepsi.

Razib,

I wouldn't describe my position as "unconcealed glee".

I do think that Western Civ is seriously overextended though, given our hold on the Americas, Australasia and Northern Eurasia. I am expecting some major consolidation in the coming century all else being equal. I think this is likely given economic trends (the rise of Asia) as well as demographic trends, (European demography leading the world down). I consider the Americas to be the most defensible position for a greatly diminished West.

In a sense I am anticipating a continuation of the contraction of the West that started with the fall of the European Empires.

I believe that radical technological change in the form of say, greatly extended lifespans, and technological singularity a la Kurzweil, is the greatest unknown that could totally transform this picture.

To bring this back closer to topic: the "Putin revival" of Russia seems to me to be predicated on a single variable - the massive income-boost that oil & gas exports from the Russian republic have made possible. Russia is for now a bigger producer than Saudi Arabia (Excel File) . KSA is a bigger exporter though due to the larger domestic consumption in Russia. My expectation is that this oil & gas boom will not last all that long - a couple of decades. But that would take us way OT.

"I do think that Western Civ is seriously overextended though, given our hold on the Americas, Australasia and Northern Eurasia."

Why? What does 'overextended' mean? The first two area's were inviting invasion, would've been China if not Europe, while the very first has been thoroughly conquered by western civilization, primarily christendom all over, and anglospheric liberalism in the north. Europe has always been... Europe... and will continue to be, it's heart, Germany, admits few, while in the rest the unalterable trend is migration barriers (unlike in the US)

Do you guys want to see yourselves in a civilizational struggle? How much of this westrabia bull is the product of tolkien-worshiping nerds masturbating over grand good-vs-evil scenario's?

Dan, your last paragraph ignores the fact that the russian economy, since putin's flat tax revolution, is moving away from natural resource dependence (PDF). This has gone unnoticed in the biased western media.

grand good-vs-evil

well, on the cognitive level i think it is the appeal of platonism or manichaeism. there is a problem. that being said, the memes that get promoted like mass conversion to islam or the muslim russian army in 8 years suggest to me that though there is an external threat (radical terrorist islam) some of the response is predicated on internal dynamics (seeing what you want to see, feeling what you want to feel).

"Why? What does 'overextended' mean?"

It means less than 10% of the world's population mid-century holding a hugely disproportionate part of the world's prime real estate.

"Do you guys want to see yourselves in a civilizational struggle?"

I don't know who "us guys" is. I study trends and try to see what happens if you project them. A simple trend-jockey, that's all I am.

"the russian economy, since putin's flat tax revolution, is moving away from natural resource dependence"

It's amazing what you can do when a rapidly renationalizing oil and gas industry underpins state finances. The Mexicans are facing the same problem as the output of their Cantarell oil field starts to decline. Who is going to finance the state without oil income? Maybe that flat tax is gonna have to go one day. Enjoy it while it lasts Vladimir.

Razib says: "...some of the response is predicated on internal dynamics..."

Razib is a very polite fellow. I think he's saying that the public debate on this sort of topic is heavily infested with loons.

I strongly agree. But I think that the sort of loons who visit GNXP or infest various other blogsites are considerly less harmful than the similar loons who dominate the DC thinktanks or sit at the top of our government.

Seems to me that if we just shot all the loons the world would be a much more peaceful place.

"How much of this westrabia bull is the product of tolkien-worshiping nerds masturbating over grand good-vs-evil scenario's?"

I'm more a Darwin-worshiping nerd. Good and evil are only defined for me, relative to the imperatives of my DNA.

"Europe has always been... Europe... and will continue to be, it's heart, Germany, admits few, while in the rest the unalterable trend is migration barriers"

I am asking myself: What is a sustainable equilibrium position in a world where Asia utterly dominates economically, scientifically, politically and militarily? Where the US Navy feels safe from overwhelming Chinese military might as long as it sails up and down the Mississippi. Where an increasingly thinly-populated bunch of Europeans are incapable of fighting to defend their vast domain across Eurasia without help from nurses to put on their Depends. How is a culture like that going to fight off the younger, leaner and hungrier hordes to the south? Who by the way would also like plasma TV's.
Tell me why this is not the world sometime after 2050ad?
And if you think this can't happen, I have to tell you, these are the trends. And until I know the trend will change, I believe the trend.

See I figure: We abandon the Eastern hemisphere, and the Western is our future homeland. We reach a quid-pro-quo with the Asian superpowers China & India, that we have no further interest in the old world as long as they leave us alone in the new. They can sort out the political geography of their, much-larger and more-populated hemisphere, however it suits themselves.

It's somewhat like a return to the Monroe doctrine, with the Asian superpowers playing the role that the European powers once did.

What is a sustainable equilibrium position in a world where Asia utterly dominates economically, scientifically, politically and militarily?

asia has the same demographic problem that europe does. japan is shrinking, china will, south korea will. the demographic transition is happening everywhere (more or less).

"asia has the same demographic problem that europe does"

No not really. Apart from the problem of China, which I am not sure how they intend to arrange their demography. I presume their planners are modelling it. Japan and Korea are likely to be shrinking. But these are very minor powers in the longer-term scheme of things. India is going to be the most populous nation in the world in a few decades I believe. It is a long way from entering its crash mode. It hasn't even stabilized yet. Major Asian nations like Pakistan and Indonesia are all well behind the Europeans and decades away from crashing.

I suspect most countries will try to target 2.1 birthrate sooner or later once they see the crash emerge in Europe. I expect countries in the future will watch their female fertility with the same intensity they now watch their GDP. Policy will be aggressively targeted to raise or lower the birthrate. It will be understood that birthrates are very critical once you get too far from replacement. Changes must be made gently if you don't want to lose control.

I think Muslims will be absorbed into the Russian people as they will into the French, British and so on. And American. Kosovo is an exception.

Most important point: The idea that women have a right to control their own fertility is a preposterous and utterly unsustainable idea. The state must at all costs control fertility or risk destruction.

The simplest way is maybe to licence contraception. No female that has not had 2 children can have access to contraception without overwhelming medical grounds. The current notion of free-for-all anarchy is unlikely to last beyond the first crash.

If lifespans start to increase we may need to reduce that 2.1. If space colonization opens up we may need to increase it or start using artificial uterus technology. In the real world, fertility is critical to a society's future and what individuals think about it is irrelevant other than through setting national policy.

Several nations like China and India have already gone a long way down this road of removing fertility policy from individual control. I don't see how any nation can avoid this in the long run.

Cuchulkhan, I think some people might be wary about what Andrei Schleifer has to say about Russia. I recommend Comparing Apples on the subject though.

Razib,

There are exceptions to the fall in fertility rate. Those exceptions are very important.

Neocon glee on Islamification of Europe: The neocons do not like Europe because the Europeans are not unqualified on their support of Israel. Since my interests are not the same as the interests of the neocons I look at Europe and see allies and friends and a great deal of shared culture and values. I also look at the neocons and threats to the Republic.

As for supposedly effeminate France cowering as dhimmis to the Muslims: See my posts France Pays Immigrants To Leave and EU Looks To Cut Employer Demand For Illegal Immigrants. This is happening while many of our neocons favor immigration amnesty and high levels of legal immigration and while most of those same neocons won't come out and call for an end to Muslim immigration. Looks to me that Europe is more immigration restrictionist than the US and European elites are wiser than US elites on immigration.

"half of Russian men are dying from alcohol related causes"

More like 19%, according to your link. The 43% figure was referring to the cause of deaths that occur among men aged 25 to 54 in Izhevsk.

Dan Dare

"Most important point: The idea that women have a right to control their own fertility is a preposterous and utterly unsustainable idea. The state must at all costs control fertility or risk destruction.

The simplest way is maybe to licence contraception. No female that has not had 2 children can have access to contraception without overwhelming medical grounds. The current notion of free-for-all anarchy is unlikely to last beyond the first crash."

-

This is possibly a self fixing problem without an authoritarian solution. Whatever genes or memes cause people to have lots of children despite living in modern societies will just increase in frequency until we get back up to 2.1.

Indeed in Philip Longman's book on this subject he uses similar logic to predict that there will be a fundamentalist revival.

Perhaps women will become more mumsy due to evolution by natural selection sifting out the career minded. I'm actually serious.

Hunter, that's a great question.

There are going to be some societies, where the "spontaneous" fertility is pretty close to 2.1 and they may only need minimal management, perhaps advertising and public education, to keep them on track.

But there are likely to be other societies where the values of the culture have become deeply fixated on a fertility far below 2.1. In those cases you have a very rapidly deteriorating situation once the crash starts.

I am sure that natural selection would work in time, but the problem is that it cannot work fast. Meanwhile the rapid population contraction is causing huge political waves that the established order can no longer ignore. The temptation to solve the problem by state authority is overwhelming.

In many instances these are not traditionally self-reliant societies. That's part of why they've gone down this road. These are already nanny-states. They are long-aclimatised to calling on the government to solve every problem. The most natural thing in the world for them, is one more layer of bureaucracy and social control.

A major problem is that only government can monitor fertility. Only government can pay the experts to model the data, migration, diseases, wars, births, deaths. All the complexities of population modelling. Also, who but the government can make sure that every woman does her share of carrying the burden of fertility? This is an issue of equity among women. Once you have a fertility target - If one woman spends her life partying and living the high life then some other woman has to have the babies she did not. Inevitably the target allows for some "spare" babies. That's why it's 2.1 not 2.0 - but they should be used to cover for those women who medically cannot have babies or whose children die. It's not there to compensate for the party-girls or the selfish career woman. Otherwise the target among the breeding women would have to soar.

Dan Dare:

"There are going to be some societies, where the "spontaneous" fertility is pretty close to 2.1 and they may only need minimal management, perhaps advertising and public education, to keep them on track.

But there are likely to be other societies where the values of the culture have become deeply fixated on a fertility far below 2.1. In those cases you have a very rapidly deteriorating situation once the crash starts."

For whatever it's worth, there's no reason to believe that most societies in the world don't have values conducive to sub-replacement fertility. If societies as various as Spain, Germany, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Cuba, and Singapore all have substantially sub-replacement fertility, while only a few societies (northwestern Europe, Australasia, North America) have settled as near-replacement TFRs, that's indicative of something.

Randy McDonald, "that's indicative of something".

It's indicative of the fact that there is no counterpart to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" guiding the optimum fertility rate, once you bypass the sex/reproduction nexus.

So it tends to settle wherever the prevailing fashion of the time pushes it. Today we are in the grips of an ideology of egalitarianism that argues that women should be as free as men. Sadly that is not practical given current technology.

The pill frees women from endless breeding but not from breeding altogether. The low deathrate means that we don't have to have a high birthrate any more. But we still need to replace the ones who die of old age.

In order to achieve the final liberation of women, at least one of of two further technological revolutions would be necessary.

1. Either eliminate death from old age. Immortals don't have to breed if they don't want to.

2. Or devolop artificial wombs and make babies in a factory.

Failing that, women's liberation can only be partial. Or mankind dies.

Randy,
Maybe immigration is a factor in many of those countries that have a higher birthrate. Conservative religion plays a role in US. It's like it's purely fortuitous cultural influences pushing it this way or that.

That's one of the reason's why I'd suggest that all states will probably have to regulate sooner or later. Because even if you're OK now. There's no guarantee that at some point in the future some new cultural pattern won't emerge and destabilise your precarious balance.

Another reason to regulate it, is in order to maintain flexibility. What if some new plague or war emerged and we needed to raise fertility to cope with an elevated deathrate? We can't just lock it down for all time at 2.1. We need flexible, intelligent control and national fertility policies.

Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War makes the point that the Russian frontier was one in which religion provided the primary us vs. them signal, while the North American frontier was one in which race provided the marker of identity. A high percent of Russian nobles were of Tatar blood, but they were Orthodox. Given the historical roots of Russian identity, it seems that the growing demographic weight of Muslims in Russia would be just as disruptive, and just as troubling to the status quo, as the corresponding growth of non-whites in the United States.
On a slightly different point, it is much easier for a Christian to convert to Islam than for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. To become an Orthodox Christian requires complex ceremonies of baptism and chresmation, following extensive instruction; to become a Muslim requires only that one utter a single statement to another Muslim. An most Muslims have real difficulty accepting that the man Jesus is actually God--this is why Christian missionaries make so little headway in countries like Afghanistan. It is therefore hard to credit figures like 2 million Russian Muslims converting to Orthodox Christianity.

Dan,

One reason women have kids is that they are swept off their feet by a dashing husband who also can pay all the bills and live with her and family happily ever after. I'm serious.

So, go to the gym for a few months, buy some new clothes, get a haircut, fix your teeth and find a date!

If you impress her enough, I am sure that she will want to have at least 2.1 children with no government intervention necessary. So you will be doing your thing for the preservation of western civ.

Plus, as I have pointed out before, and as an additional benefit, your very own genes will get to keep moving forward into the future -- no doubt at some time on the horizon moving out into space!

;-)

Hey Ogler. I'm not sure I'm personalizing it that way. My argument isn't really about me. In a way, our genes have always tricked us into reproducing ourselves - by giving us a powerful sex-drive and making pregnancy automatic.

Now that contraception has broken the linkage, we still get the sex, and most people don't care all that much if their genes survive or not. As long as they have fun and get to buy lots of high-tech toys. In fact fewer kids means more toys for me. Radical individualism has staged a coup d'état against the genes.

So who does care? I'm focusing on the state because I see that the state is the most-natural ally of the genes. Like the genes the state is potentially immortal. Institutionally the state "needs" to preserve itself and win power struggles against other states. The state can be trusted to take the long-term view.

Put it this way: I cannot guarantee that any particular state will act to save itself. But I think I can guarantee that in the long run, the states that survive will be those that did act to save themselves. Sooner or later the others will disappear by natural selection.

Given time, even Western civilization would probably discard radical individualism and try to save itself. But Western civ is not alone in the world. We were the first to discover science, but the others know about it now and they are catching up fast. The real question is not whether Western civ can survive, but whether it can figure out how to survive quickly enough to retain it's lead over other civilizations. Of this I am sceptical.

Of course for me genetically it makes no difference which civilization wins. As you pointed out before, if I bred with a Chinese lady, say, and if my descendents did the same, then in two or three generations my descendents would be seen as fully Chinese. This is one reason why racism has never made any sense to me. It is too easy to switch race.

A really smart selfish genome, knows that it can survive in any human population, and always picks the most likely winner.