TUJ continues his series on Smart Fraction Fertility. Part One and Part Two. Part Three follows. I know it's long and data-heavy, but believe me, it's very very very (not a typo) worth it. TUJ has made quite an impressive discovery. Concise summary at the end for lazy people.
Part III – Delayed Fertility is Reduced Fertility and Fun with Microsoft Excel
As was noted previously in Parts I and II of Smart Fraction Fertility, whether one is analyzing IQ, high housing values, advanced levels of education, or household income it seems that every positive social indicator imaginable negatively correlates with total fertility. I will now prove that this is utterly and completely wrong. When conservatives note the negative correlation between high fertility and positive social indicators they are being mislead. This is because they are only looking at overall TFR.
However, overall TFR represents a deceptive metric in analyzing the dysgenic conundrum. Instead, when expounding on the current dysgenic fertility, one should instead compare positive social indicators across various age groups.
Here's how I proceeded. When one ranks the states according to non-Hispanic white mean IQ and when one breaks down the non-Hispanic white fertility rate by age group, it becomes abundantly clear that higher white IQ positively and substantially correlates with higher white fertility after the age of 29. And by extension, lower white IQ substantially correlates with lower white fertility after the age of 29.
Let me make this ostensibly clear: High IQ = higher fertility after age 29, Low IQ = higher fertility before age 29.
This also applies to two other positive social indicators I looked at, namely, high housing valuations and high household income. The correct diagnosis of the problem is that positive social indicators only delay white fertility. After age 29, those positive social indicators work to increase white fertility just as nearly all positive social indicators increased white fertility prior to the Industrial Revolution. In a later part of this series, I will argue that the solution to the problem of dysgenic fertility is to use modern Artificial Reproductive Technologies (ART) to extend white fertility past age 40.
My calculations used the following data if anyone wishes to corroborate my findings.
1) Download the following pdf and go to page 31.
2) Look at the data provided by Audacious Epigone to see which states have the highest and lowest non-Hispanic white IQ scores.
3) Go to this link and observe which states have the highest and lowest housing valuations (data not broken down by race) .
Also look at the state level data for non-Hispanic white households ranked by income for 2007 inflation adjusted dollars I obtained from the US Census website. Below is the mean and STDV of white fertility rate by age group.
Age 20-24
STDV 23.242563
MEAN 89.292
Age 25-29
STDV 15.25
MEAN 113.588
Age 30-34
STDV 13.669
MEAN 92.04
Age 35-39
STDV 8.71
MEAN 38.08
Age 40-44
STDV 1.96
MEAN 7.04
As you go through the above data and look at the state level and age specific birth rates for non-Hispanic white women in the 2002 CDC pdf, you will note that individual states with positive social indicators do indeed positively correlate with state level fertility after the age of 29.
For example, high white IQ Colorado has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower IQ Alabama after the age of 29. And high household income Massachusetts has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower household income Arkansas after the age of 29. And high housing valuation California has a higher birth rate per 1000 than lower housing valuation Mississippi after the age of 29.
Overall correlation between white IQ by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:
Total Fertility Rate: +0.007
Age 18-19: -0.612
Age 20-24: -0.507
Age 25-29: +0.079
Age 30-34: +0.768
Age 35-39: +0.601
Age 40-44: +0.453
Overall correlation between non-Hispanic white household income by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:
Total Fertility Rate: -0.212
Age 18-19: -0.704
Age 20-24: -0.524
Age 25-29: -0.385
Age 30-34: +0.660
Age 35-39: +0.838
Age 40-44: +0.866
Overall correlation between housing valuations (not broken down by race) by state and birth rate per 1000 for non-Hispanic white women by state:
Total Fertility Rate: -0.466
Age 18-19: -0.710
Age 20-24: -0.556
Age 25-29: -0.592
Age 30-34: +0.410
Age 35-39: +0.738
Age 40-44: +0.853
Now that I have proven beyond all doubt that Historically Normal Fertility (HNF) returns after the age of 29 I will show how to achieve overall HNF. Because modern civilization causes white women to delay having children, we must therefore conclude that the best way to restore HNF is to simply extend white women’s average fertility life span using ART.
How much of an extension would be necessary to achieve natural population growth among and HNF among white American women? Let us return to the 2002 state level fertility data so we can calculate how much of an increase will be necessary. According to page 31 of this PDF the 2002 fertility rate for all non-Hispanic whites was 1.8285. Obtained by adding rates over age groups and multiplying by 0.005.
If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.
Unfortunately, women on average become considerably less fertile after the age of 35 because both the chromosomal quality and quantity of human eggs their ovarian reserves carry declines rapidly after the age of 35. Therefore, achieving a higher level of fertility after the age of 35 will require two new Artificial Reproductive Techniques which, very fortunately, have been perfected literally over the past six to 18 months.
***********************************************************************************************
Let me conclude by stating what I have shown:
1) It is true that overall fertility increases as positive social factors decrease. Put simply: Overall, stupid people are actually having more babies.
2) But if one breaks down the data by age group, this is not true. In fact, after age 29 amongst white women, positive social factors increase as fertility increases. Put simply: After age 29, smart people have more babies. Thus, one concludes modern society merely delays the fertility of smart people, it doesn't nullify it completely.
3) I have proved this by showing state income, housing valuations, and IQ have a strong positive correlation with state fertility for cohorts older than age 29.
50 comments:
PS: The following data may be useful to those who want to explore how much the delay in fertility among white women has had an impact on white American fertility over the past 50: By comparing the 2002 white birthrate with the birthrate for white
American women in 1960 on pages 2-4 of this PDF created by the CDC
(Insert link http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t991x07.pdf ) it
immediately becomes obvious what the cause of low fertility is:
delayed fertility. Notice how sharply fertility has declined from
1960 to 2002 among white women under 30. For white women ages 20-24 in 1960, the live birth rate per 1000 was 246.7 compared to a rate of only 84.3 in 2002. In 1960, white women ages 25-29 had a live birthrate of 194.9 per 1000 compared to a rate of 109.3 in 2002.
For people's future reference, here is the household income data I obtained from the Census website:
In US Dollars:
Alabama 46095
Alaska 67919
Arizona 50958
Arkansas 40863
California 61842
Colorado 56471
Connecticut 70314
Delaware 59144
Florida 49224
Georgia 55568
Hawaii 63870
Idaho 45601
Illinois 58156
Indiana 49224
Iowa 47078
Kansas 48381
Kentucky 41263
Louisiana 47980
Maine 45670
Maryland 73597
Massachusetts 64818
Michigan 51608
Minnesota 57314
Mississippi 44659
Missouri 46896
Montana 43461
Nebraska 48319
Nevada 55966
New Hampshire 61500
New Jersey 72244
New Mexico 43829
New York 58907
North Carolina 49333
North Dakota 44539
Ohio 49271
Oklahoma 43055
Oregon 48288
Pennsylvania 50545
Rhode Island 57279
South Carolina 49745
South Dakota 45164
Tennessee 44642
Texas 50497
Utah 54323
Vermont 49624
Virginia 63147
Washington 55520
West Virginia 36495
Wisconsin 52231
Wyoming 50845
Another way to calculate fertility rates:
Live births per 1000 women in specified age group (for non-Hispanic whites) for the year ending 2002:
Ages 10-14: 0.2
Ages 15-19: 28.5
Ages 20-24: 84.3
Ages 25-29: 109.3
Ages 30-34: 94.4
Ages 35-39: 40.9
Ages 40-44: 7.6
Ages 45-49: 0.5
Sum = 365.7
Sum * 5 = 365.7 * 5 = 1828.5
Product / 1000 = 1.8285
Total Fertility Rate = 1.8285
I don't see where non-hispanic whites can take any demographic comfort from all this. Fertility rates are still very low. Even if they up-tick around age 30, they are still in a demographic decline.
Ya 'gotta have 'em when you're young.
As Sir Francis Galton pointed out long ago, if group A gives birth at an earlier age than group B, group A can be outbreeding group B even if overall fertility is the same.
Let's say group A has all their kids by age 20 and have three children each. In 60 years, three generations have passed and a woman has 27 grand children (3^3).
Group B also has three kids each but they all have their children by the age of 30. After 60 years only two generations have passed and a woman only has 9 grandchildren (3^2).
So if smart people have babies later in life, it should be very small comfort. The age at which people give birth is important.
If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.
This is no solution at all. While my first post was a hypothetical, if white women end up having kids at 35 and NAMs are having them at 25, then it only takes about 70 years for NAMs to be one generation ahead. Nevermind the worst of the worst who are having kids at 16.
I don't see where non-hispanic whites can take any demographic comfort from all this.
No, fertility extension solves the problem of dysgenic fertility completely.
As I wrote:
If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.
The technology to do this already exists because it has been perfected over the past year. It is simply a matter of training IVF lab technicians and purchasing some new instruments before fertility extension becomes an extremely achievable goal (I'll have more on this at part IV).
This is no solution at all.
Fertility extension technology completely solves the problem of dysgenic fertility.
The point of this entry is that the reason smart white women have lower fertility is because they are postponing fertility until they can only have children over a much shorter time interval.
The solution is simply to extend the time interval white women have to produce children.
Ya 'gotta have 'em when you're young.
If their fertility is extended, women don't need to have them "young" if they can have them later without worrying about a decline in your ovarian reserves when you are older.
Short of fertility extension, how are you going to get, say, a white Stanford student to have lots of kids before the age of 29?
Are you going to ban high IQ women from working?
Fertility extension solves dysgenic fertility completely.
As Sir Francis Galton pointed out long ago, if group A gives birth at an earlier age than group B, group A can be outbreeding group B even if overall fertility is the same.
Galton's point doesn't apply if Group B makes up for the delayed fertility by having so more children than Group A in her later years that the total number of kids she her lifespan exceeds Group A.
Galton's point doesn't apply if Group B makes up for their delayed fertility by having so many more children than Group A in their later reproductive years that the total number of kids Group B has over their reproductive lifespan exceeds that of Group A.
Richard:
Suppose demographers are looking at how many kids two groups of women have over a twenty year interval:
1) Suppose Group A has 70 kids over the first ten years and 30 kids over the following ten years.
2) Suppose Group B has 60 kids over the first ten years and then 60 kids over the following ten years.
After the twenty years are up, which group had MORE children in total, Group A or Group B?
Galton's point doesn't apply if Group B makes up for their delayed fertility by having so many more children than Group A in their later reproductive years that the total number of kids Group B has over their reproductive lifespan exceeds that of Group A.
Have you shown that? As you get older, intelligence correlates with having children. But we need to see absolute numbers instead of correlation.
Take this for example
Age 35-39: +0.738
Age 40-44: +0.853
What percentage of all births is that? Maybe high IQ women have 1 children per 100 after 40 and dumb women 1 per 10,000. That would lead to a high correlation between intelligence and births after 40 but wouldn't be a large number of all births and relatively meaningless.
Looking at your page 31, in 2002 for all races there were 103.6 births per 1,000 women in the 20-24 range but 8.3 in the 40-44 range.
In Alabama amongst whites in 2002 there were 102.3 births per thousand in the 20-24 range and 4.4 in the 40-44 range. For Massachusetts the numbers were 41 and 10.9. You see Alabama has more than double in the 20-24 range and Massachusetts more than double in the older cohort. Still, the older births are such a small percentage of all births that Alabama is way ahead. This is obscured by looking at correlation only.
The solution is simply to extend the time interval white women have to produce children.
You have to show that the differences in who would take advantage of the technology would be so large as to make up for the differences in birth rates when women are younger.
Take this for example
Age 35-39: +0.738
Age 40-44: +0.853
What percentage of all births is that? Maybe high IQ women have 1 children per 100 after 40 and dumb women 1 per 10,000. That would lead to a high correlation between intelligence and births after 40 but wouldn't be a large number of all births and relatively meaningless.
The absolute number of births after age 29 are extremely likely to be more than enough to compensate for the delayed fertility if fertility extension technology is used.
I do not have the absolute number of births in each state and broken down by age group for 2002.
However, 40.2% of all white babies born in the United States for the year ending 2007 were born to mothers in the 30-45 age group:
Preliminary Birth Data for 2007
Absolute number of births to non-Hispanic white women for the entire United States:
Non-Hispanic white
Total 2,312,473
By Age Cohort:
30–34years 566,197
35–39years 301,666
40–44years 62,152
ART will do only so much.
Doesn't matter if one can get pregnant at advanced age, if you can't physically handle childbirth as well. You'll have one, and then be done.
Wait, all you people commenting on this post are men, aren't you? Getting pregnant isn't necessarily the tough part [and forget about the egg quality, let's just pretend the getting pregnant part is done] - it's staying pregnant and then being able to put up with babies, little kids, etc. It's much easier to physically keep up in one's twenties.
My maternal grandma had all six of her kids [plus miscarriages in there] by the age of 26. My mother had her three by that age. I didn't get married until that age. No way I was having six, no matter the reproductive tech out there. Too tiring.
You have to show that the differences in who would take advantage of the technology would be so large as to make up for the differences in birth rates when women are younger.
I checked.
The answer is that hundreds of thousands of white women would use fertility extension each year because it will be cheaper and 2.5 more effective than IVF and there were about 150,000 women in America who used standard IVF in 2005.
"It's much easier to physically keep up in one's twenties.
"
Considering the data TUJ presents for women over age 29, many don't seem to care about this.
To judge how well extended fertility would work, it's probably a good idea to look at adoptions. Many older (alot of them in their 40's), high intelligence women adopt one or more children from foreign countries. It's likely these women would instead have their own children if the technology was available.
Btw, I'm going to lump human egg donation and human egg banking with as a single "fertility extension" technique.
Meep,
We don't need women to have lots more kids in their 50's and 60's - just their late 30's and early 40's.
As I wrote:
If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.
"It's much easier to physically keep up in one's twenties."
The reason women have trouble becoming pregnant after the age of 35 is because the number of chromosomally normal eggs women have in their ovarian reserves declines very rapidly after their 30's. HOWEVER the Uterus can carry babies safely for healthy women in their mid 40s.
Again the issue is the EGG quality, not the ability of a woman's uterus to carry a baby.
Better methods of preserving and donating human eggs to older women solve this problem.
I do not have the absolute number of births in each state and broken down by age group for 2002.
However, 40.2% of all white babies born in the United States for the year ending 2007 were born to mothers in the 30-45 age group:
A) That's still a minority.
B) We're back to Galton's point about shorter generations. You claimed that older intelligent women were having so many more babies when they were older that they were making up for the lower IQ higher birth rate in the 20s and younger. You based that simply on correlations, which doesn't work. They're not even having an equal amount and if they were they'd still fall behind by waiting so longer.
Dysgenics is a serious problem. New technologies may help, but it'll be genetic screening more than anything.
You claimed that older intelligent women were having so many more babies when they were older that they were making up for the lower IQ higher birth rate in the 20s and younger.
Yes, but only IF their fertility is extended:
As I wrote:
If white women increased their fertility in age 35-39 from 40.9 to 90.9 per 1000, and age 40-44 increased from 7.6 to 57.6 per 1000, the overall white TFR would be 2.3285, thus, achieving replacement level fertility and Historically Normal Fertility.
Pregnant women over 35 and certainly over 40 are more prone to pregnancy complications such as hypertension, growth restriction, diabetes, preterm birth and cesarean section. According to Barker's hypothesis their offspring should be more sickly. Also, older women having babies will increase the number of kids whose parent or parents become ill or pass away while they are still children which might have a deleterious effect on their mental health and upbringing.
Smart women have kids while their young.
Pregnant women over 35 and certainly over 40 are more prone to pregnancy complications such as hypertension, growth restriction, diabetes, preterm birth and cesarean section.
Women over 40 would need a bit more monitering but it is a very manageable problem for a doctor to deal with provided the pregnant woman is in decent health.
For example, actress Geena Davis had three children from donated eggs - the first born in 2002 when she was 46 and the the next two in 2004 when she was 48.
It is even doable to have children in the mid 50's using donated eggs, but this requires close monitoring by a physician.
According to Barker's hypothesis their offspring should be more sickly.
The offspring are more sickly in women over 35 because the children are being conceived with older eggs.
This problem is eliminated if egg freezing and egg donation from younger women becomes more routine.
I'm happy for Geena Davis, but the point remains that on average older women will suffer more often from the complications that I mentioned than younger women.
Also, do you have any data on the average IQ of egg donors compared to the average IQ of egg recipients compared to the average IQ of younger women who have babies? That would be an important statistic.
And lastly, when a 25 year old woman decides to have a baby, lets say she has 10 years of good fertility left. That's about 120 shots at pregnancy. How many eggs do you think a younger woman thinking ahead would freeze? 20? 30? A 25 year old fresh egg has a better chance of being fertilized than a 25 year old egg frozen and thawed after 10 years, so if she runs out of eggs and none of them implanted, she's back to her 35 year old eggs. Or 40 year old eggs. Obviously some women will truly benefit from the new technolgies, but the smart thing to do is have babies when you're young.
TUJ,
Good job. Nice to see that you didn't buy into the TFR. It's better to look at CTFRs. Are you familiar with Tomás Sobotka's work, a young Czech demographer who has been researching fertility delays among European women for years.
http://www.vub.ac.be/SOCO/demo/docs/Keynote_Sobotka.ppt
1) The thing is, Richard Hoste is right.
Galton indeed pointed out that fertility rates aren't everything; the generation 'tempo' is just as important. If two groups of women are having 2 to 3 children, while one is starting at 20 and the other at 30, the first group will be more numerous over time. It's clear that this happening in the developed countries; immigrant women start families earlier than natives. The reason for this is obvious: different cultures are in different stages of the demographic transition. If native women would increase the amount of babies at 30, it would still be unsure if this could stop dysgenic fertility. But then again, it’s better than nothing; at least, the negative trend would be less problematic and slower. (And if La Griffe is right that countries are dependent on the smart fraction of their population alone, it would indeed not matter what the fertility of the underclass was: they’d be irrelevant.)
Your finding that smart women are still having children -- just later -- is welcome news. It really goes into an area of demographic inquiry I’ve long anticipated. We already know that some people (from certain groups) in modern societies are still having babies: the religious and those with high time preference – the latter, because they can’t plan; it just ‘happens’ to them. (I also suspect that ethnocentric people could be a third of these two groups, but no evidence has ever been found for this. Just speculating from my side. A multicultural society might increase the fertility of the ethnocentric, because it would fuel their fire. An unintended consequence of population policy, like the welfare state which improved the fertility of the underclass.) Anyway, you’re right that we should further analyze how fertility differences are constructed and your research indicates that high IQ women are not averse to having children, like some say, they’re just 50% of their reproductive years busy with other things. ART might help, incentives might be another option. We’d be best of with a lot of different fertility enhancement methods, so women can self select the best suited means to have the desired family size – there’s a remarkable discrepancy between realized fertility and desired family size.
2) R.A. Fisher once wrote a fascinating paper that delved deeper on the fertility tempo differences within populations.
“A positive correlation between fertility and longevity has been reported in certain middle class family histories, and it is by no means obvious that such correlations of this kind as may exist should be the same in all classes, A direct examination, and approximate elimination, of this factor should be obtainable from a full return from the same population at a later census; for we could then compare two records of the total children of the same age class up to the date of the first census, If the expectations of sons is at or very near to unity, that is if the population is only tending to increase to or decrease to a small extent in each generation, then we only need to consider, in respect of rate of population changes, the average interval of time which separates the generations ; but with rapidly decreasing or rapidly increasing groups the distribution of the ages of fathers at the birth of their sons must be taken more fully into account.”
(..)
“If two occupations, for example, were each halving their numbers in each generation the rate of decrease per annum, and the corresponding need of recruitment, would be greater in that which had the shortest generation, and the sons born early should count for less than the sons born late; equally if two occupations had each an expectation of 1.5 sons, the rate of increase would be greater in that occupation which produced the sons sooner, and in each occupation the early born sons would count for more than the late born. The scheme of ideas for the exact treatment of this factor is included in Malthus' analogy of population increase with compound interest. If capital is to be repaid at a premium the date of repayment is of importance in the calculation of the rate of interest realized. To find the appropriate rate of interest in the analogous problem of human increase we must reduce the future sons, whose advent we are expecting, to their present value; and the particular rate of interest which makes their present value (to the new born child) equal to unity provides an exact measure of the geometrical rate of increase of the population. The fact, which Malthus seems scarcely to have considered, of a "natural decrease" of considerable sections of mankind must be represented by negative values of the rate of interest, and these will necessarily occur whenever the expectation of sons is less than unity.”
http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/coll/special/fisher/60.pdf
HNF can only be restored if the dysgenic breeding group also starts delaying fertility.
TUJ--
Does the term "goyische kup" mean anything to you?
Fertility extension ain't worth shit without lifespan extension. Otherwise who's going to take care of all those Down's syndrome autistic kids born to those older moms (and dads).
And yes, we damn better start thinking about preventing high IQ women from working in the same way we force bulbs in winter in order to generate flowers and seeds rather than leaves. Otherwise we are heading to extinction, with the Jews leading the way. Hitler would be so happy.
Fertility extension ain't worth shit without lifespan extension.
Lifespan extension and autism (the causes of which are unkown) have nothing to do with extending fertility by about 10 years or so.
I averaged fertility over all age groups for whites in 2002 for two high IQ states and two low IQ ones.
Massachusetts- 35.2 per 1,000 women
New Jersey-39
Alabama-46.8
Mississippi-49.3
As you can see, the fertility rate for low IQ whites is more than 25% higher and they have faster "turnover."
I know you never disputed any of this, but still. Your discovery isn't all that earth shaking because of the low absolute numbers of babies being born late and the longer generational time span for the intelligent.
Also, this whole method is rather crude as you're lumping all whites in each state into a big group. There could be a million things going on that this method doesn't show us. The majority of white states have IQs around 100 and we don't know what's going on there.
Outland
Are you familiar with Tomás Sobotka's work,
No I haven't. But the same rules that apply to TFR should correlate with CTFR, ie, an increase in TFR will generally lead to an increase in CTFR, all else being equal.
If two groups of women are having 2 to 3 children, while one is starting at 20 and the other at 30, the first group will be more numerous over time.
It doesn't matter as long as the 30-45 age cohort is picking up the slack for lost time every year (keep in mind we are discussing WITHIN white dysgenics, I didn't break out numbers for non-whites).
A multicultural society might increase the fertility of the ethnocentric, because it would fuel their fire. An unintended consequence of population policy, like the welfare state which improved the fertility of the underclass.
I don't think so - blacks have had a fertility rate of only 2.0-2.1 for the past 15 years as immigration has increased. The effect of better educated women and higher female labor force participation (along with a reducation in welfare to poor mothers under the Gingrich Congress) appears to have had a negative impact on black Americans as well.
ART might help, incentives might be another option.
I am going to propose in Part V financial incentives in combination with fertility extension/egg banking/egg donation.
I will show that pronatal incentives actually DO work in Western nations at pushing fertility up from 1.3 to about 1.8-2.0.
The current problem is that these pronatal incentives have not yet been able to push a Western nation's fertility beyond the 1.8-2.0 range because women become physically incapable of responding to the extra government incentives after age 35.
So the pronatal incentives fail to hit replacement because Western women are working with an effectively shorter fertility lifespan interval after they have a college degree and get themselves financially secure by marrying a husband with a good job, etc.
HNF can only be restored if the dysgenic breeding group also starts delaying fertility.
Further reducing welfare incentives for having children and requiring longer working hours to be eligible for welfare would probably knock the black fertility rate down to 1.7-1.9 from its present range of 2.0 - 2.1.
Hispanic fertility is a larger problem only because of new arrivals.
Sailer pointed out that second generation Hispanic Americans in California have only a TFR of 2.2.
So it is possible to reduce dysgenic fertility among nonwhites simply by further restricting welfare payments.
"Otherwise we are heading to extinction, with the Jews leading the way."
1) Actually, there are plenty of Jewish Israeli demographers who think hard about these issues. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd be a great source for new ideas and solutions for this problem.
Israel is also pretty good on fertility research and genetic screening. No, I'm sure Jews will be pretty useful in solving the double challenge of dysgenic breeding of the underclass and the fertility declines in the developed world.
2) Complete extinction never happens. Some people will become extinct if present trends continue: PC liberals for example. Religious White people will be with us for a very long time.
TFR's are averages, they do not show trends within populations. If the TFR was 1,5 while 20% of the country's women were having 4 babies (per women, starting at 18), do you still think that TFRs would be a useful statistic?
For example, I've been reading about Italy's dysmal fertility statistics now, this is not nonsense, but there are differences within the country that are being overlooked.
http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol21/23/default.htm
Richard,
I averaged fertility over all age groups for whites in 2002 for two high IQ states and two low IQ ones.
From the same data:
Mississippi TFR: 1.9185
New Jersey TFR: 1.8295
If New Jersey's fertility is extended from:
Age 35-39: increase from 60.7 per 1000 to 95.7 per 1000
Age 40-44: increase from 11 per 1000 to 56 per 1000
New Jersey's TFR increases to:
TFR - 2.2295 which is above replacement.
Also, this whole method is rather crude as you're lumping all whites in each state into a big group.
Sailer did the same thing when he studied the effect of housing valuations on overall TFR and I didn't hear anyone complain about his methodology when he wrote about Affordable Housing Formation.
The only difference is that I am looking at the effect social indicators have within each age cohort whereas Sailer only looked at overall TFR.
Re Israeli demographers,
I doubt they know anything American and European demographers don't already know.
The higher Israeli Jewish birthrate is probably down to Orthodox Jews and
Mizrahi Jews having higher TFRs than the more secular Ashkenazi and Southern European Sephardic Jews.
For example, I've been reading about Italy's dysmal fertility statistics now, this is not nonsense, but there are differences within the country that are being overlooked.
Ooooooo!
Speaking of Italy, I would be VERY interested to see if areas WITHIN European countries experience a similar fertility pattern as seen in the US, ie, positive social indicators positively correlate with fertility after the age of 29 WITHIN a European nation.
Do we have any European readers who want to dig up the data?
All of this is rather beside the point. Yes, it is nice to know that average white IQ potential is not falling, and with the Flynn effect may still be creeping up.
The big issue, however, is mass immigration of low-IQ women who have 3 kids at young ages.
To increase high-IQ fertility, the best thing to do is cut INCOME taxes on the upper middle class.
It's really amazing when the GOP controlled the entire gov in 2001 and 2003 they decided to eliminate the estate tax entirely and cut capital gains from an already low 28% to 15%, but kept the rate for the upper middle class at around 30% federal + 15% FICA + state income taxes.
Here's the focus of the GOP politicians on tax policy in approximate order:
1. Cut the estate tax, which less than 1% of estates pay, and mostly falls on those aged 50+ because rich old parents usually aren't both dead until one is at least 85+.
2. Cut the capital gains tax, which mostly falls on older people and the very wealthy
3. Cut income taxes for the top 1%, who already have plenty of money for kids are again are mostly 50+.
4. Cut corporate taxes, which are ultimately paid by shareholders, who are mostly 50+ and/or top 1%.
That's GOP policy for you, Paris Hilton should pay 0% on her inheritance, Cindy McCain pays 0% on the $3 million a year she gets in tax free municipal bonds, but a highly educated young couple making $160,000 year and paying off huge student loans should pay almost 50%.
TUJ, you may be planning to mention this in the next installment, but what are the two new ART methods that have just been recently perfected?
TUJ, you may be planning to mention this in the next installment, but what are the two new ART methods that have just been recently perfected?
The two techniques would be used to create human egg banking on a large scale.
Google "Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) Dr Simon Fishel" and "Vitrification of Human Eggs."
The two techniques combined with eachother reduce the cost for an entire egg donation procedure (from extracting the eggs from the egg donor to the birth of the baby) from the present cost of $25,000-$30,000 per attempt (and with a very low success rate) to $7,000-$10,000 per attempt with a very high (70%) success rate.
To increase high-IQ fertility, the best thing to do is cut INCOME taxes on the upper middle class.
I'm going to prove that pronatal policies such as cutting income taxes for families, and other policies such as paid maternity leave, and subsidized childcare DO increase fertility.
But pronatal effectiveness is decreased among the upper middle class because upper class have an EFFECTIVELY shorter fertility interval to work with.
Pronatal policies COMBINED with fertility extension techniques (such as egg banking and egg donation) expand the fertility interval upper class white women are working with.
WITHOUT fertility extension, pronatal policies do not work as well because educated women ARE NOT PHYSICALLY CAPABLE of responding to the pronatal incentives as well as they would if they had a LONGER fertility lifespan interval to work with.
While we're awaiting TUJ's argument on actually increasing smart fraction fertility, he has at the very least made a strong argument showing that smart women do actually want children. It's not about motivation or a lack of biological want, it's about practical concerns like education and money.
TUJ,
"Ooooooo! Speaking of Italy, I would be VERY interested to see if areas WITHIN European countries experience a similar fertility pattern as seen in the US, ie, positive social indicators positively correlate with fertility after the age of 29 WITHIN a European nation."
It's actually fairly important to point out regional differences such as those in Italy, because there's a 'fertility belt' coming into being in Europe. The trend was already acknowledged for Scandinavia, UK and France.
If Northern Italy would show similar signs of a fertility rebound, it's very good news, A) because Italy has had decades of TFR's around 1,3 -- meaning the country would lose 35% of its population per generation. This is a very fast decline, a hard trend to reverse. B) It would show that the reported fertility rebound in Europe is real and not some short time phenomenon.
"If Northern Italy would show similar signs of a fertility rebound, it's very good news,"
Do you know what the birth rate is by age cohort, though?
Do the wealthy parts of Italy have higher birth rates per 1000 women in the over 29 age cohort than the poorer parts of Italy?
TUJ,
No. I don't.
But the lowest-low fertility of Southern and Eastern Europe is mostly due to cultural conservative attitudes. This is widely known in the literature.
Women must combine study, work and raising children, therefore delay fertility indefinately. Southern European men are not as feminized as their Norhern brethren. Many Italian and Greek men live with their mothers until their 30s until they get married.
However, I will search for your desired data this week. Not now.
Seriously, you have no clue what's involved in being middle-aged and pregnant. I wasn't talking about 40-year-old + women, I'm talking about women in their thirties [early or late].
Yes, lots of women are getting pregnant in my age group amongst white women... but most will have one or two, that's it. Yes, that's more than zero, so there's that. But it is very tiring to be pregnant at this age.
There are lots of problems beyond just =getting= pregnant, and I'm not going to go down the list of all the problems I know from personal experience [mine or friends']. I know plenty of women who had originally thought to have two kids, but after the tribulations of dealing with the first pregnancy wanted no more to do with it.
I agree with Meep here.
TUJ -- You vastly IMHO underestimate the very HARD biological factors that limit, and put very HARD limits, on fertility after thirty.
First, pregnancy is hard, probably the equivalent to playing in the NFL. Sure Brett Favre can play, but he's a genetic freak. Randy Couture probably the same in MMA. Genetic outliers, not the median.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION. Period. We will simply have to accept a future of Idiocracy.
First, women will NOT abandon career and success, most of which is centered around snagging status and the Alpha Male. The Sex and the City life. Sure, most women want kids. They just want them with Alphas when they also have status. This is hard-wired and not changeable.
Second, fertility extension are likely to (as described by commenters above) result in lots of birth defects, down's syndrome, miscarriages, and so on. For most women it is indeed, "one and done." That's just the way it is.
Third, the advantage of "quantity has its own quality" by births at age 17 or so, when women are most fertile, fewest birth defects, most physically able, are unstoppable.
Let me be clear. For now, America is a White Majority nation (around 76% according to the US Census Bureau).
In the future, America will resemble a cross between a Barrio and the movie "Precious." THAT is our future. Fertility extension is like bailing out the Titanic. No, we cannot restrict smart women from doing what they want (pursuing career and status and Alpha males) because they vote.
At best, fertility extension means a few more single mothers, a significant portion of them with disabled kids.
Outland sez,
Women must combine study, work and raising children, therefore delay fertility indefinately.
Yes. Northern European countries which subsidize childcare and maternity leave so women can more easily combine work with raising children have higher TFRs than Southern European states where female labor participation is lowest.
And thank you for digging up that info. Feel free to post it here when it is convenient for you to do so.
meep sez,
I wasn't talking about 40-year-old + women, I'm talking about women in their thirties [early or late].
There were nearly 900,000 white women in the 30-39 age cohort who gave birth in 2007 - out of 2,312,000 total births to white women for 2007.
So obviously, there are nearly a million white women each year who do not agree with your precious personal anecdotes about how utterly impossible it is for women in their 30's to have babies.
Whiskey sez,
THERE IS NO SOLUTION.
With all due respect, my numbers say otherwise.
Second, fertility extension are likely to (as described by commenters above) result in lots of birth defects, down's syndrome, miscarriages, and so on.
Again, no.
Birth defects are caused by using older eggs - not older uteruses - which are more likely to be chromosomally abnormal compared to the eggs of younger women.
If women either vitrify (fast freeze) their eggs when they are younger or if they use donated eggs from soon to be available egg banks their children will be at no more of a risk for birth defects than a baby born to a 20 something.
At best, fertility extension means a few more single mothers, a significant portion of them with disabled kids.
Fertility extension (ie egg freezing and egg banking/donation) means hundreds of thousands more births a year.
There were 150,000 women who underwent IVF in America in 2005 and there will be hundreds of thousands more women than that who will use egg banking and egg donation because these new techniques will be much cheaper, less physically demanding, and have much higher success rates.
Btw, as far as women having children over the age of 35, my critics are assuming that medical technology won't catch up to help the bodies of older women carry babies.
However, doctors will work to develop more hormonal treatments, excercise regimens, and nutritional supplementation to help older women's bodies handle childbirth as the demand for egg banking and egg freezing increases.
Be a *bit* more optimistic Whiskey!
:)
Honey, I've had two babies in my thirties. [and one right before]. So duh, I know women are having more than one in this age range. I can go down the list of problems that make miscarriages [and C-sections and other birth problems] more common in this age group, but since you know all, what's the point?
Anyway, nice for the menfolk to school me on making babies. What do I know.
Great Post.....
I found your site on stumbleupon and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down the road!
Thanks for sharing....
Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!
Post a Comment