"The Muslim Peril" (according to Mark Steyn)

I've just finished reading Mark Steyn's "America Alone; The End of the World as we know it" most of which sticks to the usual far-right paranoia outlined in similar books by Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg. But I was struck by how his argument for the inevitable decline of Europe was based on a claim that Europe would become Islamic in a few generations, using the 'logic' of extrapolating the currently higher birth-rate amongst Muslims compared to Non-Muslims to arguethat Europe would become dominated by Muslims and a Muslim agenda in the next few generations leaving "America alone".

After extrapolating wildly from a data set of birthrates that only goes back two generations, Steyn sets up his argument from a set of premises that conveniently overlooks biological, sociology and historical counter-factuals that contradicts him at every turn.

Steyn blames Liberals for allowing higher Muslim birthrates to develop by being 'lazy breeders' whose lack of future progeny will allow Western Liberalism to 'die out' in Europe. This claim seems to be treat Liberalism, a cultural meme if ever there was one, as if it was a genetic trait, as if no liberals have ever come from conservative families or vice versa, as if once a conservative always a conservative However all reputable biologists and sociologists would point out that extrapolating population trends for cultural memes such as “liberalism” and “religion” is nothing like extrapolating future population growth based on purely genetic traits such as eye colour. There are so many variables and unforeseen circumstances that affect the growth or decline of any particular cultural meme that extreme caution should always apply to calculations of trends for these memes beyond the very near future. When applied to such a variable and complicated area as continent-wide population growth even further caution is required when predicting the future. Those that refuse to be cautious like Mark Steyn, usually end up being badly embaressed as history denies their wild-eyed prophecies at every turn.

I think of many counter-factuals that denies his argument, but one historical argument that undermines his entire premise (that increased birthrates = increased cultural dominance) is the example of Catholicism in England. There was a lot of fear and prejudice directed towards Catholics living in England after the establishment of the Anglican Church in the 16th Century. This was based on a simple extrapolation that since Catholics easily out numbered Protestants per family it was inevitable that Catholics would replace Protestants in the population until they reached a tipping point a few generations hence and could take the country back for the Pope. This however is not what happened, and shows the fallacy of treating memes the same as genes. Not every Catholic child born into a Catholic family remained Catholic. Many converted to the Church of England, either through conviction, a desire to get ahead in the Anglican dominated state, or through inter-marriage and so the percentage of Catholics in the population increased a lot slower than was predicted and then further set back by the historical developments of the Enlightenment, the Industrial revolution and the rise of secularism and multiculturalism.

Catholics in Britain still have larger families than most groupings in the UK, but they are in no more danger of taking over the population through birth-rate than they ever were. The Catholic example has been repeated again and again throughout history regardless of whether the meme with the higher birthrate was Catholics, Orthodox Jews, or Conservatives. Now of course if you are talking about genes, rather than memes, then Steyns claims become more possible but even then, as the history of America has shown, ethnic and immigrant inter-marriage tends to be a natural deflator of even these population trends as the effect of the melting pot takes hold.

Steyn's book got quite a lot of press based on this contention and while many commentators were happy to describe his claims as "provocative" and "controversial", few actually bothered to dig down into those claims and examine the logic or maths that underpinned it. Of course those on the far-right have always been happy to exploit any fear and resentment amongst the general population of an 'enemy within' for political and personal profit. I just wish the mainstream media would do its job occasionally and accurately provide some substantive challenge and criticism when providing a platform for people like Steyn.

Human Colonisation

The entry was composed as a response to a short story I am writing that relates to the recent discovery of large numbers of exoplanets circling stars 'close' to our solar system that makes future human colonisation of other planets more plausable if not presently likely. In the process of writing the story I had quite a few thoughts on what human colonisation of other planets and the possible discovery of intelligent life would mean, both for us and for them. Below are some of those thoughts.

I am pessimistic as to how any interplanetary colonisation by humanity would play out. While the initial missions would probably have a fair share of idealists and dreamers if the missions were particularly successful these dreamers would be replaced by hard headed colonists of a militaristic or capitalist bent, keen on exploiting the new planet for all it was worth including any native fauna and flora. This would include any species of intelligent or super-intelligent species capable of being exploited. The day after first contact, once the euphoria of discovering an intelligent life-form wore off, the over-riding question will be what to do about it and whether it can be utilised or exploited for our gain. This state of affairs would be entirely consistent with the great periods of colonisation in human history and is sadly more likely to pass than the optimistim of utopian science fiction like Star Trek whose optimism is suspicious when one considers the history of human colonisation.

When discussing the possibility of alien life we sometimes seem to expect aliens – especially ones older and wiser to us – to confer some kind of paternalistic kindness and wisdom on us and perhaps give us the answers to the questions we have been asking since we evolved the ability to conceive of them, namely why are we here and how did we come to be. The treatment of aliens in science fiction has either been of the hostile ‘they are here to try and kill or possess us’ or as the paternalistic God surrogate here to soothe and protect us and answer our questions (War of the Worlds vs Contact). Aliens, like God, have become a receptacle for which we have projected all of our fears and hopes. The problem is that if we encounter aliens on strange new worlds they are highly unlikely to be either, even if far more intelligent than us, therefore failing to fulfil either our greatest fears or our greatest hopes. Indeed the most likely thing they will be is strange and indeed alien to us, and us to them. I very much doubt that they would have previous awareness of humans and would probably have very little to tell us about ourselves or the universe that we did not already know ourselves. Therefore I think that we will ultimately be disappointed with aliens after the initial thrill and wonder has worn off and that sense of anti-climax will only hasten our almost inevitable regard for them as something to be utilised and exploited for human consumption, especially if the stakes are high as they may well be if we are nearing the end of the window of opportunity for space travel and exploration.

After all if we still cannot show sufficient understanding, appreciation and sympathy for different members of our species how can we truly expect to make any exceptions for alien life-forms or civilisations. This pessimism is not designed to denigrate humanity but bringing this up in order to understand and investigate our true drives, motivations and likely behaviour and how they would progress in terms of discovering and colonising new worlds and alien species. In any battle with aliens would we naturally be the ‘good guys’? Except in extreme circumstances wouldn’t that be established by the case in hand such as who is the aggressor and why? Conservatives may claim that that view shows a loathing for the human race but they would be wrong, there is little sense loathing something that is so innate to us and completely understandable as a part of our evolutionary development. On the other hand, if I do not believe in the concept of ‘my country right or wrong’ then I certainly do not believe in the concept of ‘my species right or wrong’ unless the very survival of the human race can be proven to be at stake.

On a further note of both pessimism and caution, if there are more advanced and militarily proficient alien species relatively close by, is the reason why humanity has been allowed to develop unmolested (that we know of) simply down to humanity remianing undiscovered? A bit like how the Incas thought that they have unified and ruled the world until the Spanish rolled up and quickly disabused them of that notion. If we found the cosmic equivalent of fire or the wheel and quickly spread much further out in the universe do we run the risk of eventually running into a species capable of over-running us and taking us out both in space and then back on Earth? Is our anonymity our best bet for survival? Should this give SETI some pause for thought? I consider this unlikely, I think that even if we did crack that cosmic wheel we would find that most of the alien species that we encountered would represent no great threat in this way, being primarily what I described above. However the risk is there and worth considering.

Despite this pessimism and concerns I would still not advocate a policy of settling for being a big fish in a small but very beautiful pond. Humanity's need for endeavour requires an outlet that exceeds the scope of planet and we need something to inspire and unite us as a species to avoid the spectres of boredom and civilisational stagnation, possibility of terminal conflict, ruinous environmental degradation and dwindling resources. Eventually we must find a way to live beyond our planet and our solar system in order to survive beyond the lifetime of our sun. That alone is worth the price of the space programme as is the spiritual, technological and economic benefits of it. The first space age, which when all said and done only sent us as far away as the piece of space rock stuck in Earth’s orbit, produced well over a thousand tangible and serious benefits to humanity back on Earth that included everything from the Internet to advanced heart surgery to GPS and telecommunications and so on. Given the scientific and technological achievements of that first space age one can only boggle at the potential the spin off benefits of technology developed to launch subsequent space ages, especially ones that involve serious space travel beyond our solar system.

Recently, in a “50 years of Space” supplement celebrating the 50 year anniversary of Sputnik there was a Sunday Times debate on space between Jeremy Clarkson and A A Gill with Clarkson celebrating the achievements of space and Gill disparaging it. I found I could identify with both of them and the two differing perspectives they encapsulated in their arguments underline the tension between a couple of the larger narrative themes the story addresses within its much narrower scope. I can relate to Clarkson’s enthusiasm for travel, for worlds and experiences anew, for the benefits it has brought humanity in the first space age and the inspiration it brought people around the world in the West with the Apollo programme. On the other hand I can also relate to Gill who rightly points up the flaw in Clarkson’s viewpoint, as Clarkson is notoriously dismissive of the need to take any care of this planet, which as Gill points out is ironic given that a greater appreciation of Earth and the environment was an unexpected legacy of the first space age, particularly with the moon landing which for the first time made us aware of the share beauty and fragility of Earth, a local/regional jewel in our part of the galaxy beyond compare.

Getting outside made us look inwards with new eyes and it is no surprise that it gave birth to the nascent environmental movement with the capturing of the famous ‘Earthrise’ on the moon. It is also notable that all of the astronauts of the Apollo programme who experienced this was awed and humbled by the sight and became budding environmentalists. These guys were hardly inveterate liberal, pinko treehuggers but conservative, hard-bitten military men the great majority of whom had spent their time flying fighter jets and experimental jet planes before joining the space programme. Yet it is the enduring memory of being far out in space enough to see Earth as a complete disk hanging in space with all the vastness, blackness and coldness around them that is their most enduring memory.

Both perspectives (Gills and Clarksons), one looking inwards and one looking outwards are legitimate and both are underlined in the famous T.S. Eliot quote appropriated by NASA at the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida:

“We shall not cease from explorationAnd the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time.”

Finally, while pessimistic about the short and medium term future of human space colonisation I am cautiously optimistic about the longer term future when considering the pattern of human colonisation on Earth. We must remember that after the wave of gold-diggers, soldiers, missionaries and slave owners had exploited all that they found, they were eventually followed by the anthropologists, the historians and the philosophers who helped put the relationships between the colonisers and the colonised on a different footing and perhaps once the initial fever of discovery and settlement has settled down the greater implications of space exploration and colonisation will emerge and humanity can grow up another stage further as the old ties and the old conflicts on Earth begin to wither and either be discarded completely or evolve into a more mature and peaceful form (such as deism replacing man-centred theism or humanity-ism replacing nationalism). One would think that as we get further from Earth and our children and grand-children are born on other planets so the tensions and conflicts here will begin to diminish in importance and relevance and we will one day look back on them as perhaps the necessary growing pains of humanity’s infancy.

Perhaps…