My point was that the point of a discusison is to discuss the issues that both parties want to discuss.  Getting into a semantical debate is one of those things that people find obnoxious.

The context of the discussion matters a great deal.  When I buy a BMW, I don't care whether the parts were manufactured in Korea or China or wherever. It's a German car.  Similarly, I don't care where the actual Intel CPU is manufactured, it's an American CPU.  Heck, Coca Cola is manufactured in various places around the globe too but it's as American as say McDonalds (which gets its food from all over as well).

Why even debate the point where the parts are assembled.

The context of where things are created is about companies making things we've heard of.

Intel, AMD, Microsoft, nVidia are American companies. ATI is Canadian. It's totally irrelevant whether they contract China or timbuktu to manufacture the part in the context of this discussion.

The point of this off-shoot was what was Europe making these days. I don't think either Americans or Europeans would take great pride if say France became the sweatshop of the world for menial labor.

If anything, the outsourcing part hurts the European argument more because cost can't be the full issue as to why European companies aren't leading in industries since they can at least come up with the "thing" and then have some third-world country manufacture the result.

Yes but no one is arguing that Australia is the trend setting for the rest of mankind.

It's not about whether Australia, Europe, Canada, etc. is a modern, first world country (or continent).  The question is one of worldwide influence on the course of mankind as a whole.

For centuries, Europe was where the leading thinkers and creators lived and from there led the world in shaping where humanity was going. 

But that has passed.  Some of the reason is definitely from two world wars. But I don't think that's the major reason. I don't know what the major reason for it is. But the mantle of being major shapers in the destiny of humany has passed to the United States and to a lesser extent, east-Asia. 

In 50 years, I think east-asia will play an even greater role. But I think Europe may well be spent if it follows the trend it's been following for the last 30 years. Toss in a declining birth-rate and immigration that is largely coming from a culture with a track record of brutality and little innovation and you have a definite non-ideal situation.

I agree. That is, to use the phrase, the million Euro question.  Will the 4th or 5th generations Muslims in the future be much like traditional Europeans or will they be like Muslims are in other parts of the world?  To that I really have no idea.

The Turkish situation in Germany I think is one that raises some concern. But that could very well be the issue of children of immigrants not being granted citizenship too (i.e. it may not be related to them being Muslim).

Totally agree. If Islam is going to survive as a major force in 100 years, it needs to evolve as Christianity has. As every anti-Muslim discussion goes, someone inevitably points out that 700 years ago the Christians were no better. 

My concern has to do with how every Islamic country in the world behaves. Other than Turkey, and even Turkey is considered the arm pit of Europe, the record of success for Islamic countries is pretty poor.

Hence, the more Islamic Europe becomes, the more like other Islamic regions I fear Europe will become like.

lol. Well I am always amred to do battle with the "Americans are a bunch of uncouth rednecks" Euro-weenies who always find their way into any discussion.

What I specifically am trying to get a grasp on is why European populations are in decline. It's not a population density issue. It's a cultural issue and I think it is related to the same issue that has caused Europe, as a whole, to give up its leadership role in shaping the destiny of mankind.

You saw the earlier discussions where one European here was scoffing at owning a Microwave oven (or a Dryer or many of the other modern conveniences). To me, that sounds terrible. It's cultural bias to be sure but it strikes me as the thinking of stagnation.  And I think it is that kind of thinking that causes Europe to lose its role as global leader in industries. 

That is, if new fangled thing X is viewed with suspicion, then others will end up taking the lead. The European position on GM foods I think will really come to bite them in the long-run for instance. There seems to be a tendancy to cede industries to others because of a mindset of "how things are now is just fine" and they get passed on by as a result.

This really shows through when one starts to look at the top drug companies or top chemical companies because these are areas Europe should dominate -- industries that came into their prime while Europe was in its prime whose leadership isn't based on cost but rather innovation.

When industries move from being global leaders into being purveyers of luxury niches, I see that as an admission of handing over the reigns of innovation to others (i.e. as much as I can't wait to get my Porche 911 Turbo next Fall, I'm not buying it because it's mainstream).

And that's fine that it's your experience. But that doesn't mean those who don't share your experience are less experienced than you are.

You're in Australia are you not? I suspect the products you deal with are different than the products I deal with (American cars are certainly not engineered in Europe in any sort of general sense incidentally). And the products I deal with are different than the products e-Stab deals with.

That is why we're using publicly available statistics on products, services, etc. We are trying to take away some of the subjectivity from it.  And if you look at industry after industry, Europe is not in the lead. The newer the industry, the less likely you are to see Europeans involved.

The technology industry being an extreme case. And yet, in 30 years when most of the world will likely have long since embraced genetically modified foods (for instance) Europe will lag behind due to social or political reasons (you saw the post by the European who scoffed at microwave ovens who thiks they're used mostly for dealing with frozen packets).

I don't think the United States will be the center of innovation forever either. In fact, I would be surprised if that's the case in another 200 years.  What makes these conversations interesting is trying to figure out the WHY.

I doubt the Islamic push will have as much effect as feared, but I've already said my reasons for that belief. Innovation isn't a big deal anyway, because what Europe brings to manufacturing is art, not innovation - their machinery and vehicles are often the most beautiful and graceful on the market, with the highest quality levels yet often quirky operation (like Smeg or the ugly yet appealing porsches). Islam is all about refining something coarse until it shines, so philosophically the two approaches aren't incompatible.

I agree with your statement except for the part that innovation isn't a big deal.  Without innovation, we'd still be living in caves.

At one time, Europe was at the forefront of innovation.  They were in the driver's seat of where mankind was going.  Now, increasingly, they're a passenger complaining about the driving style of those doing the innovating.  At best, they're making luxury goods -- the art you speak of.

But they're not produce the mass culture products anymore.  Very few European movies make it big, for instance. European fashion has taken a real hit in recent years relative to other markets (Blue jeans or dockers? Nike shoes? (Adidas is German and is a dominating player so score one for the Germans there too -- note again how Germany, which got wrecked in World War II is by far the leader in Europe in actually making stuff -- so it might be worthwhile to look at how Germany is different than other European countries).

They've long since lost leadership in the candy market but swiss or dutch and belgian chocolate is still to die for.  They don't lead in the auto industry but BWM and Mercedes are amongst the best cars out there. 

The problem is, if you give up on being the driving force, you're at the whims of others who are.  Consider the technology industry that's arrisen in the past 30 years.  Europe's a total bit player in that. They are at the whim of Microsoft or Apple.  Or in CPUs of all shapes and sizes. Intel, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Sun, HP, Xerox, you name it, north American in origin.

And if it's not the Americans, it's the Japanese or another Asian country that's dominating.  You want a console? American or Japanese.  You want a monitor? American or Japanese. You want a television? American or Japanese. You want a DVD player? Same thing. Over and over and over.

What we've been talking about here is that there may be a connection between European population decline and the loss of innovation and leadership from Europe. What is the cause?

We have variables: Population decline. Less represented in newer industries and losing ground in traditional industries. Highest suicide rate of any 1st-world area in the world (probably highest overall too but don't have those stats handy).

What is the root cause? It's not education alone because Europeans are no more educated than say Americans or Japanese.  My personal opinion is that it has to do with religion. I'm not religious and certainly plenty of non-religious people have children, but I think there is a dark side to extreme secularism -- living for instant gratification in the here and now.  Combined with a welfare society that punishes those who put their kneck out (you can't even fire workers in France easily) and you have a letahl combination.