Skip to content
October 1, 2012 / JayMan

A Success Story?

Commenter redzengenoist has brought to my attention that in his homeland of Denmark, policy seems to have accomplished two rather remarkable feats:

In the case of the latter, it’s not clear if native Danes are separated from the immigrant population in the reported stats. If not, then one can assume that immigrant births are more concentrated in the less educated group, which may mean that among native Danes, fertility might actually be eugenic!

I don’t speak Danish, and there appears to be dearth of English-language sources on the matter, so this is all I’ve got for now. I invite any skeptical readers to conduct a more thorough inquiry on the matter.

The Danes may have achieved a drop in Muslim fertility thanks to a change in immigration laws (see here in Danish, also discussed here) that makes it significantly less easy for immigrants to import relatives, gain permanent residency, or collect welfare in Denmark.

The boost in fertility of native Danish women, however, may have been accomplished through policies similar to the ones I’ve advocated, particularly generous maternity leave, allowing educated women to not have to choose between career and family. As redzengenoist puts it:

…the variable to narrow down on is ultimately the choices of high-value females.

They choose to have kids only when “career” and kids can co-exist. If it’s a binary, they go with materialism and career. Smart women are like dudes.

If one takes for granted that giving women the option of having a career is a jack that will not go back in the box, the best way to encourage their fertility may not be monetary incentive, but rather allowing women to have both kids and career. Powerful maternity leave laws are seen by some as one of the major causes of the fertility turnaround in NW Europe of late.

…the Danish example is often a subject of keen interest, amongst others for fx. the Chinese. What this ultimately means is that perhaps the dysgenic trend of fertility can be reversed, if you set up incentives in a way that makes sense to high IQ women.

1) they don’t want money
2) they want kids, if they can have them without penalty to their career

This behavior displayed by educated Danish women—choosing to have children only if they are not an encumbrance to achieving economic viability (i.e. status)—is quite consistent with Jason Malloy’s hypothesis about human reproduction:

…humans have a weak innate drive to reproduce, but strong innate drives to have sex and gain social status.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2009/01/educational-gender-parity-and.html?showComment=1233269340000#c9041172318968563480

In the past reproduction was largely mediated through these drives. Prior to female educational and economic integration, the female status drive was adaptive; it resulted in higher reproductive success — i.e more surviving offspring — because women would seek to elevate their status through the one channel available: by acquiring high status mates. And higher status males could subsidize more children.

But post-women’s liberation, status drive would have the opposite effect. Now status motivated women have to marry well and participate in the workforce to remain competitive with other women in the adult status arena. The time and expenses necessary for raising children are instead invested in education, career-building, and conspicuous consumption. In turn this makes low reproductive success a symbol of social status, since higher status women have fewer children.

The link between demographic transitioning and status drive are supported by a number of newer papers in the economics literature.

For example, one recent study from Brazil suggests that status imitation drove their demographic transition. As soon as different regions acquired access to Soap Operas (1960-2000) about small, middle-class Brazilian families, local birth rates would drop dramatically to the levels featured in the TV shows (from 6.3 to 2.3 children), and parents would name their children after the characters in those shows.

A similar effect on fertility followed cable television introduction in India.

In other words, as soon as women see higher class women adopt low fertility behaviors, they rapidly follow suit.

This sounds like a pretty good description of the psychology of slow-breeders as described by my Pioneer Hypothesis. For many, this leads to a lack of desire for children entirely, as seen here and as discussed and even advocated by feminist author Jessica Valenti (in her book Why Have Kids). Of course, I’d argue that the desire for children for their own sake (“natality”) isn’t universally weak, and varies across the population, being stronger among religious fast-breeders.

As such, the Danish/NW European model seems to indicate that in order to boost fertility, the drives of women—to obtain sex and status—must be made conflict less with, and possibly align with, having children. Maternity leave and benefits accomplishes this.

For the negative sense of eugenics, redzengenoist continues:

Whereas for low IQ women,

1) they want money (and will breed if kids = money)
2) their fertility is massively reduced by the availability of family planning
3) their fertility is massively reduced by breakdown of patriarchy via state intervention in crazy muslim stuff

The bottom line of which is that, in Denmark, non-western women have FEWER kids than whites, just 1.6 each, down from 3,4 kids in 1993.

These policies are also very similar to the ones I advocated. By making welfare easily available to residents (but not to new immigrants), but also decoupling benefits from having additional children and making family planning services available, fertility on the low end can be reduced.

The Danish system—which is a socialist one I might add—appears to achieve the results HBD’ers (who are mostly right-wing and distinctly anti-socialist) long for:

  • increasing fertility among the high IQ
  • decreasing fertility among the low IQ
  • restricting immigration and curbing the fertility of non-native groups (and then having that fertility be eugenic).

Of course, despite their apparently demonstrated effectiveness, and despite the urgency of the problem, it is unlikely that these socialist policies would ever be adopted here in the U.S., particularly the part about maternity leave. Of course, politically, the other component, immigration reform, appears to be a problem neither party wants to touch. However, I wanted to point out here that solving the demographic issues that are the heart of America’s problem is indeed possible, if the correct steps were taken. Whether that will happen is quite another matter.

Previously: The Leaks in the Pipeline Found?, Solutions, AgainThe Liberal/Conservative Baby Gap: Time Depth, and Liberalism, HBD, Population, and Solutions for the Future.

About these ads

70 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Staffan / Oct 1 2012 8:22 AM

    “In the case of the latter, it’s not clear if native Danes are separated from the immigrant population in the reported stats. If not, then one can assume that immigrant births are more concentrated in the less educated group, which may mean that among native Danes, fertility might actually be eugenic!”

    There is nothing in the article to suggest that Danes means anything other than people living in Denmark, regardless of origin and religion. (I speak Swedish but it’s very similar to Danish.) I tried to compare this with Sweden, which has a more lenient policy towards immigration, but I couldn’t find anything.

  2. Anonymous / Oct 1 2012 8:41 AM

    Another impediment to high-IQ fertility (“high” of course used in a generous sense, “the college-educated middle-classy”) which certainly deserves some (if not much) consideration, is that this demographic is more vulnerable to “scientifically” misinformed views of parenting leaking through so-called “psychology”, as requiring super-hero qualities. I can’t describe the relief I felt upon reading Judith Rich-Haris’ “Nurture Assumption”. It was like “hey! I can reproduce!” I think it can’t be stressed enough that this is the one book every parent, would-be parent, and could-be parent should read.

    • JayMan / Oct 1 2012 8:53 AM

      Yes, very true (see blog post #1 here). But, like with Tiger Moms and Eagle Dads, I think a certain level of obsessing over parenting may be part and parcel to high-IQ individuals, since as K-strategists, they are superior competitors.

  3. Dan / Oct 1 2012 10:25 AM

    If fertility is eugenic then the overall trend is very eugenic, because deaths are virtually always eugenic as well. Even in the cushioned modern era, dumbs are much more likely to die young than smarts.

  4. asdf / Oct 1 2012 12:13 PM

    Jay,

    I’m interested in the Danish study, but I don’t read Danish. Obviously any successes are good to study.

    My questions would be multiple though, starting with why do countries that implement similair policies (of which there are many) still not succeed?

    • JayMan / Oct 1 2012 12:36 PM

      Fertility rates are highish all across NW Europe (of course, much of that is immigrant fertility). The variables may be how they address fertility on the low-IQ end (welfare reform/family planning) and how they manage immigrants and their reliance on the system. It may be that you need to attack all three (high-IQ fertility, low-IQ fertility, immigrants) simultaneously to achieve the desire effect.

    • asdf / Oct 1 2012 2:53 PM

      Maybe. I just feel like I’ve seen these same programs fail in other countries.

      A difficult thing is figuring out what will or won’t transfer accross cultures. For instance I love the Singapore government model but know it will never happen in the US. So talking about the Singapore model is something of a waste of time, not matter how great it is.

      Similairly Singapore is the most pro-high IQ breeding government out there with the biggest interventions yet they have terrible results. So its not just the policies, but also whether they can work in particular cultures.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 1 2012 3:53 PM

      I think Singapore is brilliant in most ways, and Yew is astonishingly courageous and wise. However, I think he got this issue wrong, thus his well-intentioned policy fails.

      “Lee Kuan Yew was alarmed at the perceived demographic trend that educated women — most of all the college-educated — would be less likely to marry and procreate. Such a trend would run antithetical to his demographic policy, and part of this failure, Lee conjectured, was “the apparent preference of male university graduates for less highly educated wives”. This trend was deemed in a 1983 speech as “a serious social problem”.[5] Starting 1984, the government of Singapore gave education and housing priorities, tax rebates and other benefits to mothers with a university degree, as well as their children. The government also encouraged Singapore men to choose highly-educated women as wives, establishing the Social Development Unit (SDU) that year to promote socialising among men and women graduates, a unit that was also nicknamed “Single, Desperate and Ugly”.[5][18] The government also provided incentives for educated mothers to have three or four children, in what was the beginning of the reversal of the original Stop at Two policy. The measures sparked controversy and what became known as The Great Marriage Debate in the press. Some sections of the population, including graduate women, were upset by the views of Lee Kuan Yew, who had questioned that perhaps the campaign for women’s rights had been too successful:

      Equal employment opportunities, yes, but we shouldn’t get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the same time, be mothers…our most valuable asset is in the ability of our people, yet we are frittering away this asset through the unintended consequences of changes in our education policy and equal career opportunities for women. This has affected their traditional role … as mothers, the creators and protectors of the next generation.
      —Lee Kuan Yew, “Talent for the future”, 14 August 1983[9]
      In 1985, especially controversial portions of the policy that gave education and housing priorities to educated women were eventually abandoned or modified.[5][14]

      A 1992 study noted that 61% of women giving birth had secondary education or higher, but this proportion dropped for third-order births (52%) and fourth-or-higher-order births (36%), supporting the idea that more children per capita continue to be born to women with less qualifications, and correspondingly, lower income.[13]”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control_in_Singapore

      FFS.

      Is it any wonder that “here, have a handout, you undesirable brain cunt” doesn’t work?

      High IQ, educated women don’t want socialist subsidies. As Jayman points out, they just want kids to not kill their life. Smart women behave like dudes; we can blame that on feminism and say it makes them unhappy, but the jack won’t go back in the box. Smart women don’t want to be undesired, low-status items, which men must deign to compromise for, in return for monetary social compensation by the state for impregnating an undesirable woman. Who wants that? I wouldn’t. As the wiki points out, “money for babies” in Singapore works for low-IQ women, the ones Yew wants to discourage. Smart women don’t want it.

      Good intentions, but Yew pays for his condescension with failure, losing a generation of brilliant babies. Smart women want a fucking life outside motherhood, even if feminism is a scam that makes them unhappy – it’s not so hard to understand. If kids are a death knell to your life… no kids. If kids don’t destroy your life, then the smart women want kids, same as most high-IQ guys do (when it likewise doesn’t wreck the guys life).

      *
      One other thing: Singapores policy is more “socialist” than Denmarks, and IMHO this is the crux of their failure. You don’t need to redistribute wealth! Just set up the laws intelligently.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 1 2012 4:04 PM

      (just to make sure I’m not sounding off like I’m an unreasonable anti-socialist who disputes Jaymans essential point, btw – IMHO socialism works great in many situations, and I agree with Jayman that legislation protecting women from being fired for pregnancy could certainly be called socialist, if you prefer.

      But the women likely don’t want to see it that way… and I think there’s a non-superficial difference between cash handouts and fair-play legislation)

    • asdf / Oct 2 2012 1:49 PM

      redzengenoist,

      The whole Single, Desperate, and Ugly meme for the SDU is simply how professional women are viewed in Asia. Asian men simply don’t care about any of the stuff western feminist say they should care about.

      So if you can’t make Asian men want professional women then the best you can hope for is enough subisidies (maternity leave is a subsidy) to make a generation of single mothers, which doesn’t sound that great either (I know Jayman likes the idea, but we disagree on the impact of fathers).

    • redzengenoist / Oct 2 2012 2:11 PM

      @asdf, I think you’re right that there are cultural differences in male preference. But I don’t think the explanation for Singaporean policy failure is female inability to find a dick.

      In rich societies, it’s generally the lady who decides whether there will be kids or not. Singaporean ladies don’t want kids. Click the link I posted above: the Singaporean smart women have fewer kids per relationship as well. Because kids ruin their life. There’s no evidence I know of that they have fewer relationships.

      As the link explains, subsidies appear to have little/no effect on the smart women. But lots of effect on menial immigrants.

    • asdf / Oct 2 2012 4:04 PM

      It doesn’t really “ruin their life” though. It ruins their ability to gain status through material/professional advancement. AE has posted fertility rates by IQ before. IQ isn’t the problem. Education (i.e. liberalism/materialism) is the problem. IQ + liberal indoctrination is the anti-life factor. High IQ religious are still breading.

      Amongst cultures that value children over materialism high IQ and success are positively correlated with children (Mormons).

      I’ve yet to meet many women that want to raise kids alone regardless of maternity leave policy. Very few do that knowingly (a greater portion do it thinking they can snag the man but fail). The problem with women is never getting dick, it’s getting committment.

    • JayMan / Oct 2 2012 6:03 PM

      It doesn’t really “ruin their life” though. It ruins their ability to gain status through material/professional advancement.

      Which, if you’ve been following Half Sigma’s posts on the matter, ruins their lives.

      IQ isn’t the problem. Education (i.e. liberalism/materialism) is the problem. IQ + liberal indoctrination is the anti-life factor.

      It’s not so much indoctrination as it is an expression of the nature of these women, as per my Pioneer Hypothesis.

      Amongst cultures that value children over materialism high IQ and success are positively correlated with children (Mormons).

      Again, the Pioneer Hypothesis. These individuals have been selected to value having children for their own sake, hence have higher intrinsic natality.

      I’ve yet to meet many women that want to raise kids alone regardless of maternity leave policy. Very few do that knowingly (a greater portion do it thinking they can snag the man but fail). The problem with women is never getting dick, it’s getting committment.

      So you lose fertility from the educated never married/divorced/otherwise single women. They are still very much the minority of women.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 2 2012 11:36 PM

      “IQ + liberal indoctrination is the anti-life factor.” Sure. But this jack ain’t going back in the box. The toothpaste is out of the tube. The cat has left the building. How else can I say it.

      Different methods work with Mormon women, sure. But Singaporean women ain’t Mormons. You need to do the policy that works for Singaporean women – not do what might work for Mormon women, and thus fails in Singapore, and then blame failure on Singaporean women not being Mormon women.

    • asdf / Oct 3 2012 9:25 AM

      “Which, if you’ve been following Half Sigma’s posts on the matter, ruins their lives.”

      Halfsigma is one of the more miserable people I know. I can’t think of a better example of how unfulfilling a life status chasing is.

      As you know I’m religious, and I don’t think religion is something some people have and some people don’t have. It’s simply true. Thus everyone is capable of it. But again I think we’ve been down this road.

      The reason you can’t think of how to get the outcomes you want is because it requires people working against their material interests and making sacrifices when the materialist perspective presents no logical reason why they should. So you are left with people from time to time randomely doing things you like and then declaring, post hoc, that there must be some evolutionary “just so” theory to explain it. Which of course leaves no room for them to act any differentely.

    • JayMan / Oct 3 2012 3:49 PM

      As you know I’m religious, and I don’t think religion is something some people have and some people don’t have. It’s simply true. Thus everyone is capable of it.

      Fair enough. I can accept that if you believe in a religion, certain beliefs are part and parcel to it. For the record, that’s wrong, but I get that it’s something that comes with the package with having a religious belief.

    • JayMan / Oct 3 2012 4:00 PM

      Halfsigma is one of the more miserable people I know.

      As an interesting aside, there is a simple reason for observations like this: depressed people tend to be more realistic. Ignorance really IS bliss. One can argue if whether it is better to happily believe lies or sadly know the truth, but that’s the case anyway…

    • asdf / Oct 3 2012 9:33 AM

      redzengenoist,

      I’m not sure there is a materialist policy that will work in Singapore. The ultimate problem is that children aren’t a good move for people. We are biologically wired for sex, not reproduction. We had kids by accident. Every single happiness survey you look at shows that kids decrease happiness. So only people that are deluded or careless are going to have children (if only materialism matters). Even those with an inclination to have kids should look at the research and do otherwise if they take their materialism seriously.

      So if we start from Jayman’s assumption (the materialist atheist perspective) there is no reason to have kids and no policy that should logically work. Only if he’s wrong can his own ideas succeed.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 3 2012 10:31 AM

      @asdf: why do you think millions of actual human beings in Denmark are behaving opposite to what your mental simulation of atheists predicts?

      (hint: “mental simulation” = dehumanizing caricature)

    • asdf / Oct 3 2012 12:56 PM

      redzengenoist,

      True atheism is impossible. Godlessness is nothingness. Were one to actually become a true atheist one would have to committ suicide or destroy the world. Quite frankly I don’t think true atheism is even possible.

      Rather what we get is inconsistant atheists. People who say they are atheists but still operate as if they aren’t in many aspects of their lives. Who don’t take their believes to their logical conclusions. Jayman is one such person.

      What we end up with is the twisted and bent wreckage of pride. If one truly rejected God the result would be nothingness. So instead they let God in just a little but it gets all twisted up due to pride, and hence sin.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 3 2012 1:18 PM

      @asdf: your reply does not address the question.

    • asdf / Oct 3 2012 2:50 PM

      It seems to address it directely. You need to give more.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 3 2012 2:55 PM

      @asdf: Ok, I’ll spell it out.

      1. “I’m not sure there is a materialist policy that will work in Singapore.” “if we start from Jayman’s assumption (the materialist atheist perspective) there is no reason to have kids and no policy that should logically work.”

      2. Policy works in Denmark. Why?

      3. “True atheism is impossible. “”People who say they are atheists but still operate as if they aren’t in many aspects of their lives.”

      4. Danes are much more atheist than Singaporeans. Just say 3. about the Singaporeans.

      5. Jayman has provided evidence that this type of policy works well in other NWE countries as well.

      *
      You should say something like the following: “evidence causes me to reconsider 1.” Empirical method. Data. Humility. Falsifiability. Etc.

    • asdf / Oct 6 2012 9:20 AM

      1. I guess this is a starting point.

      2. I don’t know, the study is in Danish which I don’t read.

      I’m mostly looking at AE’s study showing a massive drop in fertility when you combine high IQ with lack of religion (and another on high IQ + education).

      http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/06/education-religiosity-and-fecundity.html

      3. This is a statement of fact. Saying God doesn’t exist doesn’t eliminate God. Similarly calling yourself an atheist doesn’t make you one.

      True atheism would be like the guy that wrote a suicide letter detailing how God didn’t exist and embraced nihilism so he killed himself. That’s about as close to true atheism as you can get.

      Most atheists are like most “religious” people. They say they believe in X but they don’t really. So they follow the principals of their supposed arguments haphazardly and hypocritically. It’s how an “atheist” can still act like a religious person in their daily life.

      You can true Scotsmen me if you want, but I don’t consider that an adequet counter argument here. A religious person expects all people to fall short of perfection, and expects few people to be so taken in by evil as to completely shut God out of their lives.

      4. Is it? I dunno. Stats linking religion to countries would be very haphazard on this front. Many low fertility countries score very highly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country

      Moreover, I kind of question the entire concept of a country being more or less religious then another based on surveys. Especially as we begin to cross cultures and religions.

      5. It’s hard for me to say. I’ve gone through all sorts of studies and its very hard to tease out all of the factors. Is it immigrants? Is it the low IQ? How are the children being born raised?

      I look out my window and I see lots of barren career women in my city. I’m not sure I’ve seen a study yet that proves my eyes wrong.

    • redzengenoist / Oct 6 2012 2:34 PM

      “Maybe. I just feel like I’ve seen these same programs fail in other countries.”

      What can I say, asdf. Your “just feel”-ings are unfalsifiable. I substantiate with data. I am led by data (which has significantly changed my mind, happily). I search out and link to data in support of the point I make. You’re not, you’re not, and you don’t. That’s your decision, but it makes debate with you pointless. You seem more interested in convincing us of your pedantic opinion that Danes who claim to be atheists are not “truly” atheists, which is simply tedious, and besides the point, as it could as easily be claimed of Singaporeans. Utterly useless to your delphic, but now entrenched notion that SG is more “truly” atheist than DK, or whatever else your underlying, data-impoverished “gut feeling” is.

      I realize that you probably don’t think you’re doing wrong with this solipsism. You’re the equivalent of an adult man who takes your coworkers lunch from the office fridge, and doesn’t realize that he’s acting outside unspoken bounds. Fine, but I’m afraid we shan’t be sharing fridge space henceforth. Good luck with whatever.

    • asdf / Oct 7 2012 12:24 AM

      “What can I say, asdf. Your “just feel”-ings are unfalsifiable. I substantiate with data. I am led by data (which has significantly changed my mind, happily). I search out and link to data in support of the point I make. You’re not, you’re not, and you don’t. ”

      Haven’t I. I showed countries that implemented policies and they failed. I also linked data showing the link between godlessness and low fertility in high IQ women.

      “That’s your decision, but it makes debate with you pointless. You seem more interested in convincing us of your pedantic opinion that Danes who claim to be atheists are not “truly” atheists, which is simply tedious, and besides the point, as it could as easily be claimed of Singaporeans. Utterly useless to your delphic, but now entrenched notion that SG is more “truly” atheist than DK, or whatever else your underlying, data-impoverished “gut feeling” is.”

      I have no clue whether SG (Singapore?) or DK (denmark?) are “more atheist”. Rather I made fun of the entire idea of measuring a country being more or less atheist. Beyond that the entire idea that atheism is a concept distinct from nothingness.

      You’ve not addressed a single point in my most recent reply. Instead you’ve gone to a past reply which I believe I’ve already backed up with examples (like Singapore).

      I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that the philosophy is the confusing part, because you’ve dodged the stats.

    • asdf / Oct 7 2012 12:41 AM

      “Fair enough. I can accept that if you believe in a religion, certain beliefs are part and parcel to it. For the record, that’s wrong, but I get that it’s something that comes with the package with having a religious belief.”

      This statement doesn’t make sense. If religion is true then its true. An individuals receptiveness to that truth doesn’t make it more or less true.

      It would be like saying math is wrong because some people have a really hard time with math. Math is what it is, regardless of whether people understand it.

      It is sad when a person is less receptive to faith then others. I’d actually count myself among the same given I was an atheist for 29 years of my life.

    • asdf / Oct 7 2012 12:36 AM

      I can’t read the original linked study (in Danish). I actually respect Jayman a ton for trying to piece this stuff together. I would not have the patience for such research. Here is my ultra sophisticated google search for English language sources:

      http://cphpost.dk/news/national/declining-birth-rate-concerns-demographers

      Last year, some 4,400 fewer children were born in than in 2010. In the first quarter of 2012, the number again declined, putting this year on track to having lowest birth rate since 1988.

      “Our fertility rate is well under the replacement rate,” Hans Oluf Hansen, of the University of Copenhagen, told Kristeligt Dagblad newspwper. “In the long run, there will be fewer young people to provide for the elderly.”

      In order for the population to remain at a constant level, the fertility rate must be slightly above two children per woman, but last year, the fertility rate was 1.76, a steep decline – in demographic terms – from the 2010 rate of 1.88 children per woman.”

      Another interesting aside:

      http://www.copenhagenfertilitycenter.com/uk/nyheder/news-131.htm

      One of 12 babies born in Denmark comes from Fertility Treatment

    • JayMan / Oct 7 2012 12:49 AM

      I used Google translate for the foreign language sources.

      Year-to-year ups and downs in fertility are to be expected. The largest single factor these days will always be cost of living.

      That fertility treatments are common is to be expected considering the advanced age Western women tend to have children.

      Low fertility is less important than whether or not that fertility is eugenic.

    • asdf / Oct 7 2012 12:49 AM

      JayMan,

      By contrast I would argue that HalfSigma is incredibly ignorant.

      We live in a fallen world. Perhaps he is accurate in describing that world. However, that is where his expertise ends. Right before all the important stuff.

      Has his knowledge enabled him to find a purpose in life (I mean a fulfilling kind of purpose, the kind that would bring him some real joy)? HS thinks that if he could somehow figure out how to become elite he would be happy. I doubt it. Roissy thinks you can find fulfillment in an endless flow of sluts, but I doubt it. I know because I used to think that way. Then I got my hands on money and bitches…and I realized that wasn’t the point of life (though I recognize just how hard it is to swear those off without having them, its much easier when you’ve had them because you no longer have to question whether you could have gotten them).

      HS, Roissy, and other materialists do describe the material world pretty well I think. But there is more to it all then that. And in this area they remain incredibly ignorant (at least Roissy sort of understands the soul draining and void worship of his philosophy, he’s just to distressed of the world he lives in to respond to it any other way then to fight nihilism with nihilism).

    • asdf / Oct 7 2012 12:51 AM

      Jayman,

      I may give google translate a try then. Is it better then the old babblefish from my youth.

      Anyway, i have to sleep now.

  5. chris / Oct 1 2012 1:14 PM

    Why not just change what constitutes status for women?

    • asdf / Oct 1 2012 2:53 PM

      Religious communities do this. For instance in Mormonism high fertility = high status, thus the best Mormon’s breed the most.

    • JayMan / Oct 1 2012 3:02 PM

      But, as per your previous comment, how much of that is endemic to the religious community?

    • asdf / Oct 1 2012 4:36 PM

      I don’t know. Clealy this trend is different in different religious communities. So it isn’t just religiousity alone.

      Mormonism is a very strange thing I don’t understand (demographically, culturally, theologically, pretty much every which way).

  6. Lusianne / Oct 1 2012 5:37 PM

    This is a bit flawed. There do exist women from Muslim countries who consider themselves “Muslim” but don’t wear hijab, don’t practice Islam and are huge feminists. When these women have children they become integrated to Danish culture. They’re also quite educated.

    That’s all so swell isn’t it? The moderate Muslims assimilate to Danish norms while the radicals keep going?

    That does not sound eugenic. It just means that the Muslim genepool is getting rid of its “moderates” (hence the fall in birth rates) while the true believers reproduce.

  7. Lusianne / Oct 1 2012 5:43 PM

    In other words, we will end up with crazies, sadists and radicals in the Muslim genepool since natural selection is steering educated Muslim moderate women towards Danish (feminist) norms and away from orthodox Islam.

    That’s quite fetching (please note my sarcasm) but we will end up with Radiocracy (instead of Idiocracy, which means rule of idiot, we will have rule of radicals).

    In a twisted way this is destroying the moderate tendencies of Islam. The feminist ones go outside the zone whereas the “true believers” stay in and replicate.

  8. Nelson / Oct 2 2012 12:37 AM

    “Of course, despite their apparently demonstrated effectiveness, and despite the urgency of the problem, it is unlikely that these socialist policies would ever be adopted here in the U.S., particularly the part about maternity leave. Of course, politically, the other component, immigration reform, appears to be a problem neither party wants to touch. However, I wanted to point out here that solving the demographic issues that are the heart of America’s problem is indeed possible, if the correct steps were taken. Whether that will happen is quite another matter.”

    So long as politicians lay in bed with the special interests that enable things like lax immigration enforcement, “union-busting,” and that “right-to-work” claptrap, these problems will continue (not to mention extant problems with gov’t assistance abuses).

    Interestingly, in searching for news on the maternity leave issue (e.g. this opinion piece), it seems cost is the “problem.”

    To tie in to your “solutions,” If politicos *finally* decide to get tough on illegal immigration (e.g. Arizona), then part of what we stand to save (over $100 billion annually) could fund maternity leave (for those politicos/employers using “cost” as an excuse). Two birds!

    • JayMan / Oct 2 2012 8:27 AM

      So long as politicians lay in bed with the special interests that enable things like lax immigration enforcement, “union-busting,” and that “right-to-work” claptrap, these problems will continue (not to mention extant problems with gov’t assistance abuses).

      Yes. What kills me is that conservatives and many right-wing HBD’ers go on about how liberals are “anti-family” and all that nonsense, when it is the Republicans who block such things…

    • Nelson / Oct 2 2012 12:03 PM

      Indeed; reminds me of the oft-mentioned (and sometimes misquoted) Bible passage on the love of money. However, liberals aren’t entirely blameless – as you state, neither side is willing to deal with immigration; we saw how much flack Arizona received for even conceiving SB 1070, let alone enforcing it.

      It seems to me that they won’t learn until sh*t literally hits the fan – and at this rate, that time may come sooner than later.

  9. bleach / Oct 2 2012 9:25 AM

    Re:immigrants, the Netherlands has implemented similar reforms recently. Not sure what their effect has been so far, but the media reaction to it has been very negative because the reforms were passed by the bellicose and rightist PVV–whereas the Danish reforms did not seem to draw any attention, although they will probably have much the same results. An interesting case in how media directs public reaction.

    Re: birth rates, I think that that is a concern more for Scandinavia than the rest of Europe. Fact is QOL would improve in most of those countries with less population. Of course, they will be stuck with the aging problem on the way there, but that’s life… no policy position is going to be easy or painless.

    • Nelson / Oct 2 2012 1:13 PM

      “An interesting case in how media directs public reaction.”

      One can view the media as a special interest group – a politician’s pride is in his/her reputation and media portrayals can make or break it (hence why I think cats are very careful with opinions, statements, and positions on “hot button” issues).

      “but that’s life… no policy position is going to be easy or painless.”

      This right here is the crux of the matter. Cats (particularly politicians and employers) want to reap benefits of policy without making the necessary sacrifices (i.e. cost); methinks penny wisdom and pound foolishness will cost them dearly.

  10. Mike Steinberg / Oct 14 2012 9:56 PM

    Government funding for IVF treatment may be a factor too?

    http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2007-April/000223.html

  11. Oskar / Oct 15 2012 3:41 PM

    The numbers regarding fertility are for women with exams from a gymnasium, that’s secondary education in the Nordic countries.

  12. samsonsjawbone / Oct 15 2012 8:32 PM

    Good entry; well-thought-out comments. A few points:

    2. Policy works in Denmark. Why?

    The elephant in this discussion, which I am surprised no one has mentioned yet, is that the policy has *not* worked in Denmark. Fertility of 1.9 per female is not a “success” story! I would frame things precisely the reverse of the way that they have been framed above: in spite of best efforts, pulling out all the stops, Danish fertility has still only managed to make extremely modest gains. I’ll believe in the Danish system of “incentives” when they result in a fertility rate of 3 or 4 kids per woman.

    It doesn’t really “ruin their life” though. It ruins their ability to gain status through material/professional advancement.

    Which, if you’ve been following Half Sigma’s posts on the matter, ruins their lives.

    There is an even subtler elephant (or assumption) in this sequence of comments, one that I want to question. Fine, let’s grant for the sake of argument that having too many kids “ruins high-IQ women’s lives” in the manner described above. Well, then – why do we care so much about increasing the number of high-IQ babies anyway? Why is that the goal? Should it be the goal? I argue not, in light of what’s been said above. Give me a society of average-IQ women who like being mothers over high-IQ career chicks any day.

    I think that too often these discussion create a false dichotomy – that you must *either* have smart people or dumb people. Clearly I don’t want the 80-90 IQ crowd breeding too much, but there’s a happy medium so far as I can see.

    Halfsigma is one of the more miserable people I know. I can’t think of a better example of how unfulfilling a life status chasing is.

    Holy Hel, I’m glad someone else sees what I see…

    Of course, I’d argue that the desire for children for their own sake (“natality”) isn’t universally weak, and varies across the population, being stronger among religious fast-breeders.

    I’m glad to see this acknowledged, and I’m interested to read the discussion about it that took place earlier. The idea that people want *sex*, but don’t actually want *kids*, strikes me as one of those memes that becomes popular in spite of its transparent falsehood, but maybe that’s just me projecting (I genuinely want a ton of kids and can’t imagine not wanting them!).

    • redzengenoist / Oct 16 2012 12:09 AM

      Most of your post is agreeable enough. But:

      1) “success” has to be looked at comparatively.

      2) “Give me a society of average-IQ women who like being mothers over high-IQ career chicks any day.” Wow, haha. Double-take, and triple-take. Is there any statement I could disagree with more?

      At this point, it’s clear that you approach this from a divergent premise, we desire diametrically opposed things. I suspect I can follow why you feel this way (encounters with unpleasant feminazi types in the US, or some such), and there’s probably little I can do to affect your opinion, except perhaps suggest you to live a few years in a culture where smart women tend to be sweeter than dumb ones.

      It’s sad that smart American women seem to be so reviled… I’ve met a number of these people who wear “MEAN BITCH” t-shirts and the like.

    • JayMan / Oct 16 2012 3:16 PM

      The elephant in this discussion, which I am surprised no one has mentioned yet, is that the policy has *not* worked in Denmark. Fertility of 1.9 per female is not a “success” story!

      Success is relative. You don’t really want your total fertility rate to go up too high (perhaps, unless you’re Russia) because that leads to overpopulation, which makes everybody miserable.

      As well, I’m not certain that it may be possible to do the rapid population transformation of the kind where the high-IQ average 4 or 5 kids per couple while the average low-IQ couple averages less than 1. Sure it’d be fairly quick, but it’s probably not really realistic.

      Well, then – why do we care so much about increasing the number of high-IQ babies anyway? Why is that the goal?

      Almost all of the good things we desire in a society—things like low crime, high economic productivity and high rates of innovation, are the products of a high average IQ populace. Increasing the average IQ of the population is worthwhile goal provided one would like to have more of these things.

      I think that too often these discussion create a false dichotomy – that you must *either* have smart people or dumb people.

      My post certainly isn’t based on any illusion of the sort (indeed, as IQ more or less exists on a continuum among people).

      Clearly I don’t want the 80-90 IQ crowd breeding too much, but there’s a happy medium so far as I can see.

      Well, your mileage may vary, but keep in mind that the “average” person, a person with an IQ of 100, isn’t very smart at all.

      The idea that people want *sex*, but don’t actually want *kids*, strikes me as one of those memes that becomes popular in spite of its transparent falsehood, but maybe that’s just me projecting (I genuinely want a ton of kids and can’t imagine not wanting them!).

      Yes, that notion is almost certainly false. I’m sure many of our experiences would tell us that many people—including smart, secular people, obsess about children—even if they don’t exactly behave in ways that leads to more of them.

    • samsonsjawbone / Oct 17 2012 12:15 AM

      @redzengenoist:

      I suspect I can follow why you feel this way (encounters with unpleasant feminazi types in the US, or some such… It’s sad that smart American women seem to be so reviled

      Well, I live in Canada, but maybe you consider that to be more or less the same thing. Anyway, truth be told, I think the “feminazi” thing is overblown, and certainly most of the high-IQ women I know are reasonably pleasant people… I don’t revile them. I just don’t want to marry them.

      a culture where smart women tend to be sweeter than dumb ones.

      “Sweeter” – okay, that’s a good quality (I mean that), but is there a corresponding affinity for children and lack of career ambition? If there isn’t, I still ain’t interested in a society full of them.

      @Jayman:

      Well, your mileage may vary, but keep in mind that the “average” person, a person with an IQ of 100, isn’t very smart at all.

      You’re right – I tend to forget that the average person doesn’t even attend college. I would say that the “sweet spot” for best combination of intelligence and values in a woman is somewhere in the IQ-110 range.

      You don’t really want your total fertility rate to go up too high

      Well, I do want it higher than 2.1, but I realize we may have different starting premises. Anyway, good discussion.

    • JayMan / Oct 17 2012 2:02 AM

      I would say that the “sweet spot” for best combination of intelligence and values in a woman is somewhere in the IQ-110 range.

      It’s worth keeping in mind that personality ≠ IQ. While there are some correlates between personality and IQ, there are plenty of women with higher IQs that have the personality traits you might desire. Of course, again, your mileage might very. :)

  13. oogenhand / May 31 2013 1:08 AM

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Guaranteed minimum income, no handouts for having children, and especially breaking down the state within the state, are indeed powerful solutions. However, increasing fertility among the high IQ, like Ultra-Orthodox Haredim, can create its own set of problems. Anyway, any drop in fertility must accompanied by measures at the other end of life.

  14. pwyll / Mar 29 2014 12:57 PM
    • JayMan / Mar 30 2014 1:33 AM

      @pwyll:

      Funny. I’m pretty certain low fertility isn’t because people aren’t having sex…

      Thanks for that!

Trackbacks

  1. The Leaks in the Pipeline Found? | JayMan's Blog
  2. Here’s an idea | JayMan's Blog
  3. All 10 Million Europeans: The Specter of Endless Low-Fertility | Hail To You
  4. Furor Teutonicus » Vruchtbaarheid (2) :: Paul Schnabel (SCP) vraagt terecht aandacht voor jonge gezinnen
  5. Victory « JayMan's Blog
  6. Some guys get all the babes – not exactly « JayMan's Blog
  7. Expectations and reality: a window into the liberal-conservative baby gap « JayMan's Blog
  8. It’s not the cads, it’s the tramps « JayMan's Blog
  9. Dystopian Conservative Future? « JayMan's Blog
  10. For every person that doesn’t want kids there are 25 that do. Is that so? | JayMan's Blog
  11. A Tale of Three Maps | JayMan's Blog
  12. Fertility and Happiness: A Global Perspetive | JayMan's Blog
  13. 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead | JayMan's Blog
  14. “Manosphere” Community Beliefs: Truths and Nonsense | JayMan's Blog
  15. Scandinavia and eugenic fertility: two hypotheses | elijahlarmstrong

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 965 other followers

%d bloggers like this: