Re: Chauncey Tinker on Dysgenics

By request, I am responding to Chauncey Tinker’s posts on dysgenics:

Dysgenics and Welfare and Dysgenics and Solutions.

To summarize, our current generous welfare system is making it increasingly difficult for hard working members of society to afford to have children. Lazy and incapable people meanwhile are continuing to have children without restriction, courtesy of those hard working people. Its more than likely that average intelligence is falling as a result of these pressures.

Ever since someone proposed the idea of eguenic (ie, good) breeding, people have been concerned by the possibility of dysgenic (bad) breeding. If traits are heritable (as, indeed, they are,) then you can breed for more of that trait or less of that trait. Anyone who has ever raised livestock or puppies knows as much–the past 10,000 years of animal husbandry have been devoted to producing superior stock, long before anyone knew anything about “genes.”

Historically–that is, before 1900–the world was harsh and survival far from guaranteed. Infant and childhood mortality were high, women often died in childbirth, famines were frequent, land (in Europe) was scarce, and warfare + polygamy probably prevented the majority of men from ever reproducing. In those days, at least in Western Europe, the upper classes tended to have more (surviving) children than the lower classes, leading to a gradual replacement of the lower classes.

The situation today is, obviously, radically different. Diseases–genetic or pathogenic–kill far fewer people. We can cure Bubonic Plague with penicillin, have wiped out Smallpox, and can perform heart surgery on newborns whose hearts were improperly formed. Welfare prevents people from starving in the streets and the post-WWII prosperity led to an unprecedented percent of men marrying and raising families. (The percent of women who married and raised families probably didn’t change that much.)

All of these pleasant events raise concerns that, long-term, prosperity could result in the survival of people whose immune systems are weak, carry rare but debilitating genetic mutations, or are just plain dumb.

So how is Western fertility? Are the dumb outbreeding the smart, or should we be grateful that the  “gender studies” sorts are selecting themselves out of the population? And with negative fertility rates + unprecedented levels of immigration, how smart are our immigrants (and their children?)

Data on these questions is not the easiest to find. Jayman has data on African American fertility (dysgenic,) but white American fertility may be currently eugenic (after several decades of dysgenics.) Jayman also notes a peculiar gender difference in these trends: female fertility is strongly dysgenic, while male is eugenic (for both whites and blacks). Given that historically, about 80% of women reproduced vs. only 40% of males, I think it likely that this pattern has always been true: women only want to marry intelligent, high-performing males, while males are okay with marrying dumb women. (Note: the female ability to detect intelligence may be broken by modern society.)

Counter-Currents has a review of Lynn’s Dysgenics with some less hopeful statistics, like an estimation that Greece lost 5 IQ points during the Baby Boom, which would account for their current economic woes. (Overall, I think the Baby Boom had some definite negative effects on the gene pool that are now working their way out.)

Richwine estimates the IQ of our immigrant Hispanic-American population at 89.2, with a slight increase for second and third-generation kids raised here. Since the average American IQ is 98 and Hispanics are our fastest-growing ethnic group, this is strongly dysgenic. (The rest of our immigrants, from countries like China, are likely to be higher-IQ than Americans.) However, since Hispanic labor is typically used to avoid African American (reported 85 average IQ) labor, the replacement of African Americans with Mexicans is locally eugenic–hence the demand for Hispanic labor.

Without better data, none of this conclusively proves whether fertility in the West is currently eugenic or dysgenic, but I can propose three main factors that should be watched for their potentially negative effects:

  1. Immigration (obviously.)
  2. Welfare–I suspect the greater black reliance on welfare may be diving black dysgenics, but some other factor like crime could actually be at play.
  3. Anti-child culture.

I’m going to focus on the last one because it’s the only one that hasn’t already been explained in great detail elsewhere.

For American women, childbearing is low-class and isolating.

For all our fancy talk about maternity leave, supporting working moms, etc., America is not a child-friendly place. Society frowns on loud, rambunctious children running around in public, and don’t get me started on how public schools deal with boys. Just try to find something entertaining for both kids and grown-ups that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg for larger families–admission to the local zoo for my family costs over $50 and requires over an hour, round trip, of driving. (And it isn’t even a very good zoo.) Now try to find an activity your childless friends would also like to do with you.

Young women are constantly told that getting pregnant will ruin their lives (most vocally by their own parents,) and that if they want to stay home and raise children, they are social parasites. (Yes, literally.) We see child-rearing, like tomato picking, as a task best performed by low-wage immigrant daycare workers.

I am reminded here of a mom’s essay I read about the difference in attitudes toward children in the US and Israel, the only Western nation with a positive native fertility rate. Israel, as she put it, is a place where children are valued and “kids can be kids.” I’ve never been to Israel, so I’ll just have to trust her:

How Israelis love kids, anyone’s kids. The country is a free-for-all for the youngest set, something I truly appreciated only once I started bringing my own children there. When I was a teenager visiting Israel from the States, I noticed how people there just don’t allow a child to cry. One pout, one sob, and out comes candy, trinkets and eager smiles to turn a kid around. That would never happen back home—a stranger give a child candy?!—but in Israel, in a nation that still harbors a post-Holocaust mentality, there is no reason that a Jewish child should ever cry again, if someone can help it.

Incidentally, if you qualify under Israeli health care law, you can get a free, state-funded abortion. Abortion doesn’t appear to have destroyed Israel’s fertility.

Since male fertility is (probably) already eugenic, then the obvious place to focus is female fertility: make your country a place where children are actively valued and intelligent women are encouraged instead of insulted for wanting them, and–hopefully–things can improve.

17 thoughts on “Re: Chauncey Tinker on Dysgenics

  1. Thanks for the feedback and thanks for the links I will study those! I strongly agree that we need to challenge the culture that is against child-bearing. I think that immigration to the West may be partially masking the internal downward trend for example in the UK which imports a lot of doctors and other professionals.

    My biggest frustration with the subject is simply the lack of research that is done on it, I suspect for reasons of “political correctness”. I did manage to find this study from New Zealand which seems to confirm my worst fears (if it reflects the reality across the Western world which I strongly suspect it does):

    “An example of such a study from the 2006 New Zealand census showed that women who had completed higher education were having substantially fewer babies (1.85) than those who had no higher education (2.57):”

    This was the result of research done by Professor Jim Flynn who seems to nowadays think his “Flynn effect” is in danger of coming to an end. This type of research To my mind is at least as useful as research on IQ test results. As some of your other commenters noted, some of this Flynn effect may be just noise, and reductions in air pollution etc. and improvements in diet are unlikely to affect “g” perhaps so much as to allow complete brain development?

    There was a third post as well in which I included the above link:

    As you suggest, I think the picture is in fact much more complicated than simply an overall downward trend. Above all I want to see more research done on the subject.


    • Sadly, anyone who has ever hung out in a Mom’s group knows, on at least a gut level, that most moms are not very bright. It’s very easy to stupid your way into pregnancy, and much harder to smart your way into it. But don’t go suggesting to a mom’s group that they aren’t very bright and maybe should have worked harder at not having “oopsies.” Trust me, it doesn’t go over very well.

      Myself+spouse excepted, the fertility rate among people I knew in college is probably around 8 kids per 100 people. (They might still have some more, but most of the women have the idea that they’ll have one kid when they’re 39.)

      The situation with doctors in the UK sounds pretty dire.

      There are a lot of bad situations in the West that elites are trying to use immigration to fix, like social safety nets built on the promise of infinite population growth. Obviously the planet cannot handle infinite population growth, so it’s a terrible model for a long-term economic plan, but that’s what we’ve got, so that’s what elites are trying to keep running by bringing in more people. Of course it’s not going to work if the newcomers are themselves a net drain on the economy.

      More research is definitely needed.

      Sorry I missed your other link. I’ll take a look at it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. and the religious have more children then the atheists. Many religions forbid birth control. This is what is causing the environmental crisis, and the population crisis. There are just too many people.


    • In the West, religious people are not having enough children to make a dent in the environment. Globally, the fertility hotspots are places like Afghanistan and sub-Saharan Africa, which are both pretty low-consumption cultures, though if these populations move en masse to high-consumption cultures, then we’ll certainly have a problem. I think the current overpopulation problem has to be laid squarely at Mao’s feet, though, for encouraging the Chinese to massively increase their population. Chinese are still trying to correct that and get China’s long-term population under control. (I don’t know what India’s excuse is.)


  3. Jim provided a fairly compelling argument in favor of the idea that feminism leads to lower fertility. Feminism is indoctrinated in secular western schools, but not in observant Jewish schools (I can’t speak for Christian schools). Observant Jews have only mildly dysgenic breeding (and only then because the chassidim have absurd birth rates and are not as high IQ).


  4. It’s horrible the decline in the number of White kids. My Aunt had four kids and out of that she has only 2 Grand kids.

    “…(Note: the female ability to detect intelligence may be broken by modern society.)…”

    This immediately made me think of the “Book of Bonecrkr”. It’s a fairly horrible book on Women but it’s not entirely untrue from what I’ve seen in my life. Boncrkr says,”…All women say they want a dominant, successful, high status man with enlightened values. It is extremely easy to identify where a man is in the pecking order; by his job, by his dress, by the way he talks and acts and by the way other men treat him. Everyone knows where a man stands.

    This includes women, who could easily snap up a man like this who freely advertises if he is available or not.

    The problem is that almost no women actually follow through with this behavior. Dominant, successful, high status men with enlightened values are regularly passed up for dangerous, weak, emotionally unstable drug dealers with bad BO and a rap sheet as long as my arm. The younger and more attractive a woman is, the more likely she is to ignore the good men and screw as many of the bad men as she can get her hands on. Not all women do this. Some screw as many fraternity brothers as they can handle a night, just as long as they are drunk/high and treat her like dirt. Any man who doesn’t act this way is labelled a loser, no matter how high status or macho. It’s hilarious, and deeply, deeply sick.

    Then, when a woman reaches about age 25, she starts to hunt for a man who is both wealthy and weak willed. Both qualities are very important, because her sole purpose for hunting this man is to attach herself vampire-like onto him and drain him for all he is worth. They continue to screw bad men during the entire marriage. Strong willed men quickly say no to this crapola and move on to the next woman. After a while, they start to wonder if all women are vampires trying to trick them into a bad situation. Certainly they don’t meet anyone who actually cares for him and sincerely wants to be his wife.

    Many of our country’s most powerful men are either unmarried, taken to the cleaners by divorce, or are stuck in a marriage that is an obvious lie, often making up for it with dishonourable behaviour. A perfect example of this is Bill Clinton. His wife is an obvious lesbian who only married him because he was going places and could further her own political ambitions (the pay off isn’t always in money, lol).

    I’m tempted to say that American women are unable to recognize signs of status, power and high quality in men. But it’s not true. They know full well what the deal is and purposefully choose the weak, psychotic, scum of the earth until they want a meal ticket.

    Real men are left without….”


    • I forgot to add that I think Women pick Men like this in some primal unconscious way that they will protect them. Troublesome aggressive Men who would be better at bashing in some other tribes head.


    • I don’t think whites have ever (within the past few thousand years) given birth to particularly high numbers of children, but current trends are depressing this even further.

      I’ve never really understood my gender’s approach to dating. Without statistics, I’m wary of saying anything too broad–certainly in everyday life I meet plenty of women who dated sensibly, got married, and have been good and loyal. I don’t know which % of women go the Tinder route and which % of men would if they could.

      High IQ men do get married and produce more children than low-IQ men, so clearly they are getting laid somehow, they just aren’t pairing off with high-IQ women. (I suspect there is a “sweet spot” of women who are smart enough not to be sluts, but not smart enough to aim for high-IQ occupations like lawyer or doctor, and so don’t get into feminism and the fertility shredder.)

      Low-IQ, low-class women go after shitty men because that’s what they can get, and shitty men are happy to enjoy them. High-IQ women go after shitty men because I don’t fucking know. It’s like feminism has taught them all that social control is for losers and that imitating low-IQ women is the way to go.


    • Every so often I hear a report about how rent-a-womb technology is only a few years away. And every few years I hear a report about how a medication we thought was totally safe for pregnancy turned out not to be. I am very skeptical about practical a-uterine reproduction for the foreseeable future.


      • I think the best route for an artificial uterus is not go there at all but to link in the genes for a human uterus into a sheep or some other animal. You could do this somewhat randomly until you got the animal where it took. CRISPR tech is really going to speed things up tremendously.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s