The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJohn Derbyshire Archive
Fertility Collapse—Minorities Hardest Hit! Electing A New People Delayed?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
fertilitydeclinesrace-w640

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Hatched, matched, and dispatched”—my mother’s term for the births, marriages, and deaths columns in our local paper.

Let’s visit the hatcheries.

What’s mainly happening in the hatcheries: a slowdown of business. Americans are not making as many babies as we used to: Births plunge to record lows in United States, MSN, May 17, 2018. The report is about the latest numbers on fertility from the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control

The key number here: Total Fertility Rate, or TFR. That’s the average number of children a woman will have in her reproductive lifetime at present rates. So we assume that when she’s twenty-five, she’ll reproduce at the rate twenty-five-year-olds are reproducing at today; when she’s thirty, she’ll reproduce at the rate thirty-year-olds are reproducing at today; and so on. That’s the TFR.

For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.

Last year the overall rate for the U.S.A. was 1.76. That’s down from 1.82 the year before, a three percent drop in just one year.

I should say the math here is not straightforward. From the definition of TFR that I gave, you can figure, if you think about it, that TFR as calculated might be misleading if, for example, women switch from mostly giving birth in their twenties to mostly giving birth in their thirties.

This actually seems to be happening. From the MSN report:

The only group that saw an increase in births were women aged 40-44, said the report. Whether they can’t afford children, or they have access to contraception and simply prefer to wait, women in their 20s and 30s continue to put off having children in America. This is a general trend that has been visible in the data—with a few ups and downs—since the 1970s.

What’s that? You want to know the breakdowns by race? Shame on you!

Since you ask, though, here’s a different summary of the CDC figures at the Institute for Family Studies website: Baby Bust: Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women, by Lyman Stone, May 16, 2018.

That’s right. Where the Baby Bust is concerned, you can bring out the old New York Times cliché: “minorities hardest hit.” The biggest decline across the last decade has been among Hispanics, who went from 2.85 to 2.1, a drop of 36 percent.

Hispanics started high, though. Aborigines—American Indians and Alaska natives—started lower, with a TFR of 1.62, and dropped to 1.23 across the decade. Nobody’s sure why.

Black fertility dropped from 2.15 births per woman to 1.89. Non-Hispanic whites went from 1.95 to 1.72, a comparable drop from a somewhat lower start point.

fertilitydeclinesrace-w640

As you can tell, the CDC report is a treasure trove for us math geeks. You could get a couple of Ph.D. theses out of these numbers.

There’s a political angle, for example. As that second study, the IFS study, reports, the TFR has fallen in every state, except, mysteriously, North Dakota.

However, it’s fallen more in states Hillary won in 2016 than in Trump states. The old conservative jeer against liberals, that we’ll just out-breed them at last, may actually be coming true.

The general decline of interest in sexual intercourse must also be playing in to these numbers somehow.

ORDER IT NOW

I have often reflected on how odd it has been, across my own lifetime, to see the general decline in libido all over the Western world. Fifty years ago—I was there, reader, I was there—when not one citizen in a hundred had a gym membership, and halitosis and body odor were common, and the male-female imbalance in workplaces, clubs, sports, schools was way more marked than it is today, making it harder to get to know the opposite sex; back in those benighted days—with all those disadvantages and deterrents, the people of the West were going at it like rabbits.

The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, perfect dentition, and daily showers, with sex segregation actually outlawed almost everywhere—heck, we even have women on submarines today—they can’t be bothered. From a report in Maxim magazine last July, based on a different set of numbers from the CDC.

Between the ages of 15 and 19, 42 percent of women and 44 percent of men reported having sex, relative to … 51 percent of women and 60 percent of men in 1988.

The CDC report is called Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011–2015, June 22, 2017 [PDF], but the Maxim column is called Here’s Why Millennials Are Having Way Less Sex Than Generation X The reason is actually pretty shocking…, Zeynep Yenisey, Jul 7, 2017.

Maxim is a “lads” magazine, filled with pictures of women that young men would be having sex with…if they could be bothered.

This image is the one use to illustrate the ladies of the former age—Sophia Loren in Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.

It’s fascinating to watch these strange currents in human tastes and behavior. What do they tell us? What, if anything, should we do about them?

This is an area where any thoughtful person can develop opinions and arguments.

One thing is clear, though: triumphalist Democratic predictions about the imminent Election of a New People through immigration policy may be, er, exaggerated.

Fascinating. If I could have my time over again, I’d become a demographer.

2010-12-24dl[1]John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He has had two books published by VDARE.com com:FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT II: ESSAYS 2013.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Demographics, Fertility Rates, Hispanics 
Hide 224 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Singh says:

    Cock carousel is death of civilizations||

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
    "It’s fascinating to watch these strange currents in human tastes and behavior. What do they tell us? "

    John has no ideas?
    Come on..............
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Rational says:

    SMOKING, DRINKING, FEMINISM AND ALIENISM–WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

    Sir, the “minorities” (i.e. colored people) are the majority in this world. Whites are the minority, on a global scale, already.

    Causes of white extinction:

    Smoking: Kills 400,000 whites each year in USA alone.
    Drinking: Russia dying out from drinking. DUI in USA, FUI (flying under the influence by pilots in Russia).
    Liberalism: Waiting past 25 to have children, when white women start becoming infertile.
    Men exploiting young women just for their bodies, wanting to have fun first, and when they are finally ready to marry (if at all), find all the women have been had fun with by other men and are too messed up emotionally to trust any man and too old to have children.
    Feminism: Women wanting careers first, marriage later–well, the body does not wait, but jobs can. Anti-family laws of left wing politicians.
    Alienism: White women falling prey to alien invaders.

    White Race: R.I.P.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WHAT
    Yes, except Russia is posting positive statistics for drunk deaths for some years now.

    What we see there is not dying out, but a protracted ending to a generational drinking binge that began somewhere around 1965-70. Gorby with his hamfisted sobriety measures only made matters worse, but the new gen drinks way less and better quality compared to old, hence this trend reduction.
    , @neutral
    Those things mentioned are really just symptoms of the root cause. The root cause is the jewish control over white (formerly white) nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. 5371 says:

    The breakdown of births by race (TFR will come later) is there at the bottom of page 2 and in table 2 of the 2017 births report, and it shows how misleading is the “minorities hit hardest” spin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hildebrand
    High share of minority births is due to the positive demographic momentum: much larger share of Hispanic and Black population is consist of persons of reproductive age.
    , @5371
    Blax, Hispos still have substantially higher TFR than whites, especially if you exclude from the latter those who are middle eastern or give girth from nonwhite fathers.
    , @cynthia curran
    Yeah, but going from 2.8 to 2.1 in a decade is a big drop. Mexico is probably going in the direction of Brazil, Puerto Rico and New Mexico. Puerto Rico and New Mexico are Latino majority commonwealth and state, but they have some of the lowest birth rates in the US. I looked up the US Census for Anaheim and Santa Ana. In 2006, both cities had 9.7 percent and 10 percent of the populations under 5 now they have reduced to 7.2 and 7.8 percent. By 2030, Anaheim and Santa Ana will be barely higher than Mission Viejo in kids under 5 if the trend continues. Latinos outside of Texas and Florida tend to live in high cost of living states like California and New York which reduces your birth rates/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. MEH 0910 says:

    Minorities would be much happier not being born.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Here’s the update for 2017 via Cicerone:

    Later on in that thread:

    Using the same method as for the states, here are my TFR estimates (bracket is 2016):
    Whites 1.67 (1.72)
    Blacks 1.83 (1.83)
    Asians 1.68 (1.75)
    Hispanics 2.03 (2.09)
    All dropping ex. Blacks, Hispanics now below replacement

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Cicerone has some fantastic information, but their Twitter feed is too short! Does he post that to a website or something with more graphs ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Civilization (city-living) is degenerate. The more intensive the civilization, the more intensive the degeneracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. m___ says:

    What is wrong with the proportionality?

    Is a growing population desirable as suggested by the title

    Fertility Collapse—Minorities Hardest Hit! Electing A New People Delayed?

    Is realized fertility as opposed to none-realized fertility to be distinguished?

    Consumerism, is it part of the issue? Capitalism only expands the life of a tiny minority, giving them the independence to breed, raise children as another expression of being.

    The research into population must be global, particulate, and yes, a very important variable to be included in any world-view, theoretical economics, sustainability, as does the rest of the planet outside the human world.

    There is nowhere such an important variable as population issues left out of any theoretical equation, plan, as to where humanity’s future is to evolve. Demographics detailed, and how to interact with them, as a group, likewise as an individual is t-h-e most important variable.

    On the psychological level, digital masturbation, corn-syrup and palm-oil must affect the potential to fertility, as does population density, living conditions. Vaguely, we used to call it quality of life.

    Tweak for quality human, instead of quantity human, is it not time to include this as a moral option?

    Even the proportionality between men and women should be considered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RWS
    Excellent observation.

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. This is not very surprising, birth rates are dropping everywhere with sub-Saharan Africa being the exception. That is why growth rates will stay low for the next few decades as there will be fewer people who will be working and they will largely be supporting aged populations in need of expensive medical and social care. That will probably lead to more demand for immigration as the quickest way to boost the workforce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RWS
    More demand, but no solution: immigrants from the Third World are net drains on society and government in both the United States and Great Britain, if not also in other Western nations, as in the aggregate they bring few skills to aid (let alone improve) the receiving states.

    More likely is that the welfare states of the West will collapse of their own weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Said for years here:

    Mormons, Orthodox Jews, ‘quiverful’ Christians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. George says:

    I think this is relevant, but don’t know why.

    The evolutionary psychologist explains that attractive people tend to have girls, a trend that is making women far more attractive on average than men.

    http://bigthink.com/videos/why-women-are-more-attractive-than-men

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    The evolutionary psychologist explains that attractive people tend to have girls, a trend that is making women far more attractive on average than men.
     
    Fortunately for men, we're not obsessed with looks, so we overlook your relative ugliness.

    https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, …

    Ha ha ha ! [/Unz] Quite to the contrary, Mr. Derbyshire, this business might actually explain things, along with the feminism and all the rest of the possible reasons.

    Maybe a bar graph of obesity should be superimposed* in some fashion on the graph herein. Sorry to have to explain this to any women readers, but a fat body hides the curves that our bodies are interested in. When that interest is gone, what’s the point? It’s just the way Mother Nature works. BTW, even women in fairly good shape have so many tattoos now that it’d turn me off.

    .
    .

    * Really, a line graph of obesity (metric tons) vs. time (years) could be inverted and superimposed, or we could offset the fertility data’s x-axis numbers to the left by, say, I dunno, 9 months, to see if we can get a match.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I almost never see tattoos, especially on people under 35. I think it’s gone out of fashion
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. VICB3 says:
    Read More
    • Replies: @m___

    I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the effects of crowding and the behavioural sink on suppressed reproduction:
     
    We touched upon it,

    On the psychological level, digital masturbation, corn-syrup and palm-oil must affect the potential to fertility, as does population density, living conditions. Vaguely, we used to call it quality of life.
     
    The interaction, the cause consequence relationships are dense, and invisible, but the throttle could well be population issues expressed. Genetic psychometrics will have probably more surprising effects on the non-issue of "collapse". Attending the real problem, how to get to sustainable human population patterns that include all other factors of a healthy planet is the silent mention here.

    The article is a decoy, it plays the repeated trick of confusing the reader, and detract from the real issue. In the "classic" tradition of an insider joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Excellent news. Derbyshire, are your Chinese offspring a part of this decline? Have they done their part by sterilizing themselves? If not, you have to have “the talk” with them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Jamie_NYC says:

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.

    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Anon
    Child mortality? What century do you think this is?
    , @Peter Johnson
    I noticed that too Jamie-NYC, the Derb mis-stated the reason slightly. The "people who do not reproduce" are already included in the metric so that is not the reason. It is as you state, premature death rates and slight male/female misbalance. Any nonzero incidence of female mortality under age 40 or so will have an effect since that will lead to a bias in the fertility rate. Child mortality is perhaps a misnomer in this context.
    , @AnotherDad


    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.
     
    Thanks Jamie. Surprised myself to see the demographically aware Derb make this mistake. And was scanning down in the comments to see if I needed to make the correction. Actually not just strictly "childhood", but any mortality before being through your reproductive years.

    And it's now really is only a tad higher than 2 now in the modern West because very few people actually do die young.

    This is more than just an academic concern, because when you see those abysmal TFRs in Western nations--1.4, 1.7, 1.2, 1.6--they do include the large and growing number of white women who in fact do not have children. (Two of my girl cousins are in this boat.) The ones who do have kids--are often--though not in the really low TFR places--averaging near replacement. But not having nearly enough kids to overcome the high level of childlessness and delayed single child, child bearing.


    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to "get out there" is that "two is not enough". Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually "replacement", because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. "Two means death". Civilizational death.

    If you basically have your act together--are smart, and decent personality traits, have a job and your finances in order, are healthy with good genes, i.e. basically have your ducks in a row--then three or four or more kids should be your target. (Three should just be default.) Because you and your spouse are making up for the losers, screwups, non-starters, romantic failures/misfits, fertility failures. You are fit and having children is the most important thing you'll do to move our civilization forward--heck just to keep it alive!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Wowsa says:

    Off the top of my head:

    - Obesity. Shrinks the mating pool for men in particular.

    - Feminism. Shrinks the mating pool for women in particular (cause hypergamy). Also delays childbirth, due to females being pressured to make partner/PhD/etc. before getting kids.

    - Internet pr0n. Feeling frisky? Can be taken care of with one of the 2 gazillion Tube videos easily available in your phone. Also, loss of libido due to chronic hyperstimulation.

    - Soma supply at record levels. You are never bored (Netflix! Vidya gamez!), so who needs messy sex0r?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Thomm says:

    Anecdotally, the variance is huge.

    I still know a number of young white families that have 4 kids. These are families where all 4 kids are still under 18. These are in urban areas, and these are people I actually know, not someone from TV (like the Duggar or Bates families).

    The truth is, America has greatly discouraged family formation. Cuckservatives are more to blame than anyone else since they encourage single motherhood due to their pathological denial about the reality of female nature (i.e. ‘a woman only becomes a single mother because the man abandoned her’).

    I wish the black fertility rate had fallen faster than that, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Thomm says:

    Worldwide, the fertility rate has fallen everywhere except SS Africa.

    The plunge in Latin America, South Asia, and even many Muslim countries like Turkey and Iran is nothing short of stunning. Many countries went from 5.0 to 2.0 in just 30 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Thank God for them and for us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Thomm says:

    Keep in mind as well that Hispanic-white intermarriage rates are very high, which leads to Hispanic birth rates converging down to the white birth rate (which itself is lowering).

    About a third of all 2nd-gen or later Hispanics intermarry with whites. As do about a fourth of all 2nd-gen or later Asians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Some portion of the Hispanics are white to begin with, though certainly not a majority. So Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive categories.

    But your point would stand if we say that nonwhite Hispanics marrying whites will typically go on to have no more than two children on average, instead of the higher number for nonwhite Hispanics in the USA.
    , @TheJester
    Matches made in Heaven ...?

    Having known a number of Hispanic boys and their families over the past decade, I noticed that the high school boys seemed to have had the "hots" for white girls, including my daughter.

    Let me posture a reason: Just as in the Caribbean among blacks, there is pressure in the Hispanic mestizo communities to "white" the family to improve their social and economic status, something denied them in the strict caste-based cultures of Latin America. Otherwise, how can one explain Hispanic males with an obvious Amerindian heritage who have never dated a Hispanic female and have no intention of ever doing so?

    I have also known a number of white males who were very interested in Hispanic females. The latter tend to be warm, feminine, and very interested in family formation with white males ... perhaps their version of "whiting" the family. Hispanic females are a breath of fresh air when compared to white feminists who seem predisposed to be hostile toward anything and everything white and male.

    Not to be left behind, the white feminists are also finding their place ... sort of. Flying in the face of the classic female practice of hypergamy, they are showing a new and heightened interest in black males. It now seems de rigueur for white professional women to sport mulatto children in the restaurants and shopping malls. This is "virtue signaling" of the first order. Indeed, I'm assuming that they feel empowered and reassured to be able to find someone with whom to share stories about white male oppression and their common victimhood.

    So, everybody wins ... sort of!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Oldeguy says:

    Really do have to play the harrumphing old fogey on this one.
    The problem ( and I fully agree that’s it’s a very serious one indeed ) is not a decline in interest in sexual intercourse but rather a precipitous drop in the willingness to assume the duties and burdens of parenthood. The same thing has happened before over recorded history and is usually a sign of increased self absorption, decreased community morale and a society in its end stage.
    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant “hordes”.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Counter-trend on the way?
    With some uptick in economic prospects, lower unemployment, higher income, more household formations we might see more procreation from a less-stressed populace, even if just a dead-pussy bounce.
    , @Anon
    First reasonable comment I’ve seen in this thread.
    , @anon
    Urbanization plays a big part as well. As more young people move to urban areas, housing becomes increasingly expensive. In the West Coast and Northeast, you have the added problem of rich foreign buyers esp. from China bidding up property prices. Combined that with high importation of foreign labor on H1b to depress wages, young people can't afford to buy homes until well into their 30's. Few people who live in apartments can afford to raise children.
    , @dfordoom

    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant “hordes”.
     
    It's not just the West. East Asian countries like Taiwan and South Korea have even lower fertility rates than the West.

    It's every country that has been exposed to the cultural poisons spread by the United States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Maciano says:

    John,

    TFRs are misleading. Below replacement whites =/= not whites dying out per se. Some white groups are dying out, like liberals; conservatives tend to remain above replacement. This is probably a good thing, long term. Liberals are not tribal enough for modernity to survive as a group. They’ll drag us down.

    Group TFRs also have different tempo because of age at first birth. Religious people have 4 generations in 100 years, secular people only 3.

    Also, group TFRs can accelerate, fast and suddenly, when all the low TFR dead weight is gone. High fertility will return, it is inevitable; these are the only people who will survive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    So many smart commenters here, and you even seem like one but then you drop this retarded idea that liberals by default produce liberal children (and viceversa w conservatives). Thats not how DNA works That's not even how nurture works, m oron, what is this the breitfart comment section?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Ivy says:
    @Oldeguy
    Really do have to play the harrumphing old fogey on this one.
    The problem ( and I fully agree that's it's a very serious one indeed ) is not a decline in interest in sexual intercourse but rather a precipitous drop in the willingness to assume the duties and burdens of parenthood. The same thing has happened before over recorded history and is usually a sign of increased self absorption, decreased community morale and a society in its end stage.
    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant "hordes".

    Counter-trend on the way?
    With some uptick in economic prospects, lower unemployment, higher income, more household formations we might see more procreation from a less-stressed populace, even if just a dead-pussy bounce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Michelle says:

    It’s porn. All porn! Porn is much easier and more satisfying than hooking up with real women. Men and women are so different, it’s as if we are from different planets really, that though women still crave men, due to ovulation, men have just given up and are content to use reasonable facsimiles thereof.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/06/19/193493225/the-love-that-dared-not-speak-its-name-of-a-beetle-for-a-beer-bottle

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Thomm says:

    If the Hispanic birth rate is falling this much, then Ron Unz will turn out to be right about the Hispanic crime rate converging to that of whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well duh , his IQ is like 1,488 or something.
    Btw, are we talking Hispanics or just people with Hispanic sounding names??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Travis says:

    During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.
    The testosterone levels of Millennial men is far below Boomer levels. The typical 25 year-old man today has 30% less testosterone than the average 25 year-old in the 1980s…

    These trends coincide with a decline in musculoskeletal strength among young men: In a 2016 study, the average 20- to 34-year-old man could apply 98 pounds of force with a right-handed grip, down from 117 pounds by a man of the same age in 1985….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    If testosterone is way down, shouldn’t crime go way down? And shouldn’t the violent black teen males be better behaved.?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Wazoo says:

    I think the decline in sex is due to (A) the huge surge in in-line porn, catering to every conceivable taste; (B) feminism, which has persuaded many women to spend their fertile years climbing the corporate ladder; and (C) the war on men, which has produced a generation of low-earning males with few job prospects and no interest in gaining social status or even interacting with people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "(B) feminism, which has persuaded many women to spend their fertile years climbing the corporate ladder"

    Which is in line with the American value called liberty.

    "and (C) the war on men, which has produced a generation of low-earning males with few job prospects and no interest in gaining social status or even interacting with people."

    Perhaps this generation ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they perceive themselves to be "victims". Nonetheless, this "war on men" meme is blown out of proportion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. I am 26 years old and childless, I just don’t have enough money to raise a family, unless I marry a way richer girl than me, also I have a passion for Geography and History, my dream is to travel the world, unfortunately I have only been in Mexico, United States and Panama, so all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia, I think is normal falling birth rates, the new generations aspire more than taking care of children, in no time we could travel to the moon thanks to space tourism and I would need more saved money to achieve that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    I just don’t have enough money to raise a family... my dream is to travel the world, all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia
     
    'Bout says it all.

    One could of course replace, "travel" with "play video games", "buy weapons" "refubish old motorcycles" or whatever.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You don't have enough money to raise a family, but you expect to travel the world? Priorities, my friend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Travis says:

    White fertility collapsed in the 60′s and the fertility rate for whites has remained below replacement levels since 1965. we have less white women of childbearing age today than in 1970…and many of the white females today are mating with non-whites to produce non-white children…

    Census -White pop – Black population
    1970 – 180 million – 22 Million
    2010 – 195 million – 43 million

    bigger issue- the population under the age of 50
    1970 – 162 million whites – 19 million Blacks
    2010 – 159 million whites – 37 million Blacks

    The actually number of white people under the age of 50 has fallen due to the collapse of fertility which took place 50 years-ago. When Baby-boomers were at the same age as millennials 80% were married while just 30% of millennials are married. A 30 year-old millennial is more likely to live with his parents than with a spouse or partner…

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft
    And this shows precisely why "replacement fertility" is a sham. It is masked by the bigger problem of declining white population size. The number of white people of childbearing age today will never be able to make up for the dieoff of baby boomers, even if they were birthing 5 children per woman.

    Hence we can never actually replace the white population. "Replacement ferility" is an impossiblity. We have taken an irreversible hit from 50 years of white female chidlessness. There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again. It seems every country that passes the 1.80 children per woman milestone crosses a "point of no return" and never recovers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. I stopped reading after coming across the Sophia Loren GIF. I became entranced. The weed helped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Thomm
    Worldwide, the fertility rate has fallen everywhere except SS Africa.

    The plunge in Latin America, South Asia, and even many Muslim countries like Turkey and Iran is nothing short of stunning. Many countries went from 5.0 to 2.0 in just 30 years.

    Thank God for them and for us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Thomm
    Keep in mind as well that Hispanic-white intermarriage rates are very high, which leads to Hispanic birth rates converging down to the white birth rate (which itself is lowering).

    About a third of all 2nd-gen or later Hispanics intermarry with whites. As do about a fourth of all 2nd-gen or later Asians.

    Some portion of the Hispanics are white to begin with, though certainly not a majority. So Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive categories.

    But your point would stand if we say that nonwhite Hispanics marrying whites will typically go on to have no more than two children on average, instead of the higher number for nonwhite Hispanics in the USA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Biff says:

    When White women started looking like the Pilsberry dough boy I started looking elsewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. m___ says:

    In all, too few variables exposed to point to any meaningful correlations. Akarlin detailed some, but not enough to work with. The article is the graph, and another idiot trap.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. WHAT says:
    @Rational
    SMOKING, DRINKING, FEMINISM AND ALIENISM--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

    Sir, the "minorities" (i.e. colored people) are the majority in this world. Whites are the minority, on a global scale, already.

    Causes of white extinction:

    Smoking: Kills 400,000 whites each year in USA alone.
    Drinking: Russia dying out from drinking. DUI in USA, FUI (flying under the influence by pilots in Russia).
    Liberalism: Waiting past 25 to have children, when white women start becoming infertile.
    Men exploiting young women just for their bodies, wanting to have fun first, and when they are finally ready to marry (if at all), find all the women have been had fun with by other men and are too messed up emotionally to trust any man and too old to have children.
    Feminism: Women wanting careers first, marriage later--well, the body does not wait, but jobs can. Anti-family laws of left wing politicians.
    Alienism: White women falling prey to alien invaders.

    White Race: R.I.P.

    Yes, except Russia is posting positive statistics for drunk deaths for some years now.

    What we see there is not dying out, but a protracted ending to a generational drinking binge that began somewhere around 1965-70. Gorby with his hamfisted sobriety measures only made matters worse, but the new gen drinks way less and better quality compared to old, hence this trend reduction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Dante says:

    This is encouraging and it is not the only good demographic news related to White/ European fertility levels, In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics. The increase was due to an increase in both White British and European births in the country, Also the Polish birthrate has increased markedly since the Law & Justice party came to power after they launched the 500plan to boost their birthrate the same pro fertility plans have been launched in Hungary and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. In Russia the pro fertility policies of the Putin Govt have been extended to 2024 after a marked increase in births there, decade on decade from 2000-08 to 2009-17 births increased by 25.6% while deaths decreased by 14% and there is a renewed pressure on eliminating abortion altogether and the percentage of Russian’s against abortion is growing considerably. In Italy both the Lega & MS5 parties who’ll likely be the next Govt have both made boosting the birthrate a priority by introducing pro fertility policies like those in Poland. The Nationalist trend is good for Europeans as they are all Pro Natalist and anti immigrant. And further afield in European majority Diasporas like Argentina Australia New Zealand and Uruguay they all still have healthy birthrates, So good news all round.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft

    In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics.
     
    Percentage of births means nothing, especially in England.
    , @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Any idea how the white birthrate in the UK is doing in 2017? And is that figure White British, or just European? Anything below 80% White British is unacceptable, though obviously any improvement is extremely welcome.

    The Brits are aided by the Czech and polish immigrants who fuck like rabbits in better economic conditions. Even in czechia now the TFR is 1.67 and improving. Poland is around 1.45 but is looking to increase again this year.
    , @Anon
    Government help in boosting fertility and births is all very well. But are those governments doing anything about affordable housing and family living wage secure jobs so the children can be raised?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Travis
    White fertility collapsed in the 60's and the fertility rate for whites has remained below replacement levels since 1965. we have less white women of childbearing age today than in 1970…and many of the white females today are mating with non-whites to produce non-white children...

    Census -White pop – Black population
    1970 – 180 million – 22 Million
    2010 – 195 million – 43 million

    bigger issue- the population under the age of 50
    1970 – 162 million whites - 19 million Blacks
    2010 – 159 million whites - 37 million Blacks

    The actually number of white people under the age of 50 has fallen due to the collapse of fertility which took place 50 years-ago. When Baby-boomers were at the same age as millennials 80% were married while just 30% of millennials are married. A 30 year-old millennial is more likely to live with his parents than with a spouse or partner...

    And this shows precisely why “replacement fertility” is a sham. It is masked by the bigger problem of declining white population size. The number of white people of childbearing age today will never be able to make up for the dieoff of baby boomers, even if they were birthing 5 children per woman.

    Hence we can never actually replace the white population. “Replacement ferility” is an impossiblity. We have taken an irreversible hit from 50 years of white female chidlessness. There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again. It seems every country that passes the 1.80 children per woman milestone crosses a “point of no return” and never recovers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    re "point of no return":
    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished. A population decline, like Japan is experiencing, is manageable and even reversible on a long enough timeline. Going from 90% White with a 10% Black underclass to 50% White with a 35% Brown/Black underclass is irreversible. In the latter situation, the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.
    , @Hildebrand

    There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again.
     
    No, there is reason to believe in it. USA have a significant ultra-religious population of Haredi Jews and Old-Order Anabaptists. Although they still constitute a small proportion of an American population, they have very high fertility rate. If they will not began demographic transition (which is unlikely but not impossible -- see Hutterites who have accepted contraception and whose fertility already declined from 10 children to under 5), since the beginning of 22nd century their population will be large enough to influence fertility rate in whole country.

    And, as I already wrote, completed fertility of last known cohorts is above replacement. There is also TEMPO-ADJUSTED total fertility rate for US (https://www.humanfertility.org/cgi-bin/country.php?country=USA&tab=si):


    1980 1.997
    1981 2.006
    1982 1.995
    1983 1.988
    1984 1.960
    1985 1.969
    1986 1.994
    1987 1.989
    1988 1.952
    1989 2.000
    1990 2.038
    1991 2.067
    1992 2.183
    1993 2.225
    1994 2.254
    1995 2.220
    1996 2.183
    1997 2.145
    1998 2.190
    1999 2.262
    2000 2.334
    2001 2.328
    2002 2.387
    2003 2.309
    2004 2.148
    2005 2.065
    2006 2.119
    2007 2.242
    2008 2.295
    2009 2.355
    2010 2.333
    2011 2.207
    2012 2.171
    2013 2.194
    2014 2.161
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Dante
    This is encouraging and it is not the only good demographic news related to White/ European fertility levels, In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics. The increase was due to an increase in both White British and European births in the country, Also the Polish birthrate has increased markedly since the Law & Justice party came to power after they launched the 500plan to boost their birthrate the same pro fertility plans have been launched in Hungary and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. In Russia the pro fertility policies of the Putin Govt have been extended to 2024 after a marked increase in births there, decade on decade from 2000-08 to 2009-17 births increased by 25.6% while deaths decreased by 14% and there is a renewed pressure on eliminating abortion altogether and the percentage of Russian's against abortion is growing considerably. In Italy both the Lega & MS5 parties who'll likely be the next Govt have both made boosting the birthrate a priority by introducing pro fertility policies like those in Poland. The Nationalist trend is good for Europeans as they are all Pro Natalist and anti immigrant. And further afield in European majority Diasporas like Argentina Australia New Zealand and Uruguay they all still have healthy birthrates, So good news all round.

    In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics.

    Percentage of births means nothing, especially in England.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. This is very interesting! This represents an amazing opportunity for Donald Trump. But he has to act swiftly.

    With falling minority birth rates, he must immediately build the wall and crack down hard on illegal aliens. A low birth rate does no good if you’re still importing millions of Mexicans and Central Americans. Just over 50% of newborns in the USA are white. How many of those are anchor babies to illegal aliens?

    Secondly, birth control must be given in the inner cities, as with abortion. Trump is wrong to defund planned parenthood. Put one in ever corner in the ghetto, I say! Alot of the people there are barely humans, anyways.

    This, plus an improving economy for working class whites could actually improve the demographic situation of the United States. As Anatoly mentioned, the South was barely impacted by lower birth rates (although they also suffer from a high Negro reproduction rate).

    The time is now to act.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lucas McCrudy
    ".Just over 50% of newborns in the USA are white. How many of those are anchor babies to illegal aliens? "

    According to the Pew Hispanic Center, roughly 8-10% of all births are to illegal aliens and since we call assume nearly all illegals are non-white, the white share would go up by large single/even double digits if despicable cucks Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell finally passed legislation ending this practice. Almost equally frustrating is the refusal of Trump to use his bully pulpit to push the matter the way he did back when he was trying to get our votes/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Renoman says:

    Raising Children is expensive vexing thankless expensive work. The World needs far less people as we don’t have enough resources to support our current population. There are no jobs as automation has eliminated them, low birth rate -Perfect! It may be tough for a while not having sufficient money to pay pensions but hey, simple solution -kill the rich and take their money, they stole it all from us anyway so what’s the problem? Diversity breeds crowding and War, fuck that shit, leave the immigration off the table and just make do with less for a while, it will straighten itself out soon enough.

    Read More
    • Agree: manorchurch
    • Replies: @Anon
    I agree with you. Sometimes I have the impression that most of the men who comment here don’t have children.

    It used to take 20 years to raise a child. God only knows if today’s 5 year olds will ever move out of their parents house.

    A fair number of White engineers end up teaching high school math for the security once they have kids.

    The 3 year contract layoff another 3 year contract layoff is fine for a single person but it’s too insecure for a father.

    The only time our government helped families was the 1945 to 1970 period. But that was only to build a prosperous consumer society

    But the capitalists rebelled against decent wages and secure jobs and the 1965 immigration act set American workers right back to the late 19th century when the capitalist scoured Europe for cheap and desperate labor

    Only difference is the imported labor is now non White.

    No one is going to have children when they don’t have prospects for a secure decent paid job

    Check what happened to fertility during the 1930s depression. It plummeted from the prosperous 1920s. And that was when birth control was iffy and a lot of people didn’t use it for religious reasons

    No money no babies. And all the grumpy old childless bachelors blaming women won’t help.

    So many more jobs will disappear. Robots are being developed to replace nurses It will start with nurses aids and then move up the ladder.

    A lot of X rays are transmitted directly to India and read by radiologists there. I’m sure more medical jobs will be taken over by robots and tech
    , @RadicalCenter
    Yes, the planet doesn’t have enough fresh water, arable land, open space, clean air, etc., for this huge population with an industrial lifestyle and personal combustion vehicles.

    But does the world become better or even worse if the generally more intelligent, more productive people have zero to two children and the generally less intelligent, less productive have many children?

    We don’t simply “need fewer people.” We need fewer people bred from most of the world’s countries and peoples, and more from normal European, Russian, and Japanese people. No violence needed to accomplish this, just stop sending food and medicine and other aid to Africa and India — and to their kinsmen here in our countries — and focus all resources on our own peoples instead.

    , @RadicalCenter
    Killing the super-rich and taking their property? The proceeds won’t last long with such a large and increasing number of poor and struggling to take care of.

    And your definition of rich will differ a lot from the definition favored by truly poor people, many of whom hate and resent you for racial, cultural, and economic reasons. You’ll find that some of US here would be considered rich, and you won’t have time to explain to the murderous looting mob (or the heavily armed and soulless government thugs who come for your property) that you are really middle-class.

    How about merely confiscating the houses, vehicles, and excess wealth of the high-income earners in Hollywood “industry” and in the finance “sector.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Dante
    This is encouraging and it is not the only good demographic news related to White/ European fertility levels, In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics. The increase was due to an increase in both White British and European births in the country, Also the Polish birthrate has increased markedly since the Law & Justice party came to power after they launched the 500plan to boost their birthrate the same pro fertility plans have been launched in Hungary and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. In Russia the pro fertility policies of the Putin Govt have been extended to 2024 after a marked increase in births there, decade on decade from 2000-08 to 2009-17 births increased by 25.6% while deaths decreased by 14% and there is a renewed pressure on eliminating abortion altogether and the percentage of Russian's against abortion is growing considerably. In Italy both the Lega & MS5 parties who'll likely be the next Govt have both made boosting the birthrate a priority by introducing pro fertility policies like those in Poland. The Nationalist trend is good for Europeans as they are all Pro Natalist and anti immigrant. And further afield in European majority Diasporas like Argentina Australia New Zealand and Uruguay they all still have healthy birthrates, So good news all round.

    Any idea how the white birthrate in the UK is doing in 2017? And is that figure White British, or just European? Anything below 80% White British is unacceptable, though obviously any improvement is extremely welcome.

    The Brits are aided by the Czech and polish immigrants who fuck like rabbits in better economic conditions. Even in czechia now the TFR is 1.67 and improving. Poland is around 1.45 but is looking to increase again this year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dante
    Unfortunately I don't have figures for 2017 yet but can likely find 2016 figures from the ONS official site so I can check for you. As to your first point the White birthrate is the British & European and the British is 66% and European 10% and I would expect the share to rise still further. And your correct on your second point as Polish Tfr in the UK is over 2.1 and their number of births has increased every year. Thanks
    , @RadicalCenter
    Is merely two or three children “f—-ing like rabbits”? Or are the Slavs in the uk actually having big families?
    , @Dante
    Hi there I have birth stats for 2016 in England and Wales for you, 71.8% were White births or around half a Million and while I don't have race based stats for Northern Ireland and Scotland we can assume the vast majority of births in both nations are still to Whites especially in Northen Ireland where Natural population growth is the main driver of growth so with 24 thousand births and 54 Thousand in Scotland I would estimate around 75% of all births are White ( British and European ). If I find out 2017 I'll post. Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Anatoly Karlin
    Here's the update for 2017 via Cicerone:

    https://twitter.com/Cicerone973/status/996494308286128128

    Later on in that thread:

    Using the same method as for the states, here are my TFR estimates (bracket is 2016):
    Whites 1.67 (1.72)
    Blacks 1.83 (1.83)
    Asians 1.68 (1.75)
    Hispanics 2.03 (2.09)
    All dropping ex. Blacks, Hispanics now below replacement
     

    Cicerone has some fantastic information, but their Twitter feed is too short! Does he post that to a website or something with more graphs ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cicerone
    I try to put more stuff on twitter in the future, I promise! ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. The Prog/SJW take on this will just be the usual – more immigrants needed. There’s an unlimited supply and they will vote dependably. Meanwhile, robots are breeding too! Despite the fertility bust, we will have massive surplus labor in the US within a generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. A big problem is that people my age buy into the “hookup culture” meme. In theory it might sound fun and liberating – but in reality it doesn’t exist. Chasing this idea leads to frustration, degeneracy and ultimately dissatisfaction.

    Don’t get me wrong, a few guys can pull it off. But if you’re not in the 1% of guys, you’re not getting laid very often from hookup strategies. If you get any, it’s a massive amount of time and effort for 10 minutes of weak sex.

    As I discovered through experience, having a committed relationship gets you way, way, way more sex (assuming you’re not waiting until marriage). It gives both partners time to explore, love, and discover what works for them. Lots of sex leads to a higher sex drive, and more masculinity and vitality. Once you have deep sex enough times, you will inevitably start to think about reproduction.

    Millenials have little sex because few are in relationships, as they have been sold a false bill of goods. Boomers had more relationships = more sex and eventually more children. Hookup culture and feminism are the problem. Women and men are miserable but don’t realize it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Anon
    Even 40 years ago studies were made showing that married and living together couples had sex 2 or 3 times a week . While singles even in a relationship had much less sex.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Excellent points, sir.

    And what exactly are the one percent of hookup guys even achieving? None of it perpetuates their genes, their family name and traditions, their culture and mores, to the new next generation. (Unless they’re African-like scum who knock women up and abandon them, which leads to their next generation ending up disproportionately incarcerated, prematurely dead, drug-addicted, homosexual, and all the other charming things that happen so often to kids with no steady dad around.)

    My parents and their friends didn’t screw like animals or “play the field” for a lot of years before marrying and settling down. And I hardly think their generation is less manly or less normal than the current ones..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Roboticitis. Terrible disease.. replaces humans with masses of sophistication made of light steel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, ...
     
    Ha ha ha ! [/Unz] Quite to the contrary, Mr. Derbyshire, this business might actually explain things, along with the feminism and all the rest of the possible reasons.

    Maybe a bar graph of obesity should be superimposed* in some fashion on the graph herein. Sorry to have to explain this to any women readers, but a fat body hides the curves that our bodies are interested in. When that interest is gone, what's the point? It's just the way Mother Nature works. BTW, even women in fairly good shape have so many tattoos now that it'd turn me off.

    .
    .

    * Really, a line graph of obesity (metric tons) vs. time (years) could be inverted and superimposed, or we could offset the fertility data's x-axis numbers to the left by, say, I dunno, 9 months, to see if we can get a match.

    I almost never see tattoos, especially on people under 35. I think it’s gone out of fashion

    Read More
    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaat? Not where I live. It seems that the largest area of tattoo coverage is on the flesh of people from 25 to 40. (Though coverage increases as skin area increases, taking me right back to the point of my earlier comment.)

    Really, I'd be glad if that is the trend, Anon-257. It's gonna take a while if this stuff is tailing off, as, well, they stay on forever. Taking small ones off is possible, I've heard, but not easy. BTW, I don't mind some small hearts or butterflies or anchors on guys that were in the Navy - that sort of thing. It's the ones that cover a significant portion of a limb, belly, etc. that are a real shame and a sacrilege.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jamie_NYC

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.

    Child mortality? What century do you think this is?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oldeguy
    Really do have to play the harrumphing old fogey on this one.
    The problem ( and I fully agree that's it's a very serious one indeed ) is not a decline in interest in sexual intercourse but rather a precipitous drop in the willingness to assume the duties and burdens of parenthood. The same thing has happened before over recorded history and is usually a sign of increased self absorption, decreased community morale and a society in its end stage.
    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant "hordes".

    First reasonable comment I’ve seen in this thread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis
    During the past two decades, testosterone levels in American men have rapidly declined.
    The testosterone levels of Millennial men is far below Boomer levels. The typical 25 year-old man today has 30% less testosterone than the average 25 year-old in the 1980s...

    These trends coincide with a decline in musculoskeletal strength among young men: In a 2016 study, the average 20- to 34-year-old man could apply 98 pounds of force with a right-handed grip, down from 117 pounds by a man of the same age in 1985....

    If testosterone is way down, shouldn’t crime go way down? And shouldn’t the violent black teen males be better behaved.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Testosterone is going down because of obesity.
    , @Anonymous Jew
    Crime has gone way down, especially from the peak years around the 70's and 90's. Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were "freed" during the Civil Rights era.

    Pinker has a pretty good explanation in "Better Angels". He doesn't cite testosterone, but it could certainly be a factor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. n230099 says:

    The whole notion that earth belongs to humanity forever is crazy. There’s no particular reason for us to be here over anything else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Dante says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Any idea how the white birthrate in the UK is doing in 2017? And is that figure White British, or just European? Anything below 80% White British is unacceptable, though obviously any improvement is extremely welcome.

    The Brits are aided by the Czech and polish immigrants who fuck like rabbits in better economic conditions. Even in czechia now the TFR is 1.67 and improving. Poland is around 1.45 but is looking to increase again this year.

    Unfortunately I don’t have figures for 2017 yet but can likely find 2016 figures from the ONS official site so I can check for you. As to your first point the White birthrate is the British & European and the British is 66% and European 10% and I would expect the share to rise still further. And your correct on your second point as Polish Tfr in the UK is over 2.1 and their number of births has increased every year. Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dante
    This is encouraging and it is not the only good demographic news related to White/ European fertility levels, In the UK the White birthrate increased by 6% in 6 years from 69.5 % of births in 2008 to 75.6 % of births in 2014 & 2015 and this went completely unreported in the msm though it was published by the Office for National Statistics. The increase was due to an increase in both White British and European births in the country, Also the Polish birthrate has increased markedly since the Law & Justice party came to power after they launched the 500plan to boost their birthrate the same pro fertility plans have been launched in Hungary and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. In Russia the pro fertility policies of the Putin Govt have been extended to 2024 after a marked increase in births there, decade on decade from 2000-08 to 2009-17 births increased by 25.6% while deaths decreased by 14% and there is a renewed pressure on eliminating abortion altogether and the percentage of Russian's against abortion is growing considerably. In Italy both the Lega & MS5 parties who'll likely be the next Govt have both made boosting the birthrate a priority by introducing pro fertility policies like those in Poland. The Nationalist trend is good for Europeans as they are all Pro Natalist and anti immigrant. And further afield in European majority Diasporas like Argentina Australia New Zealand and Uruguay they all still have healthy birthrates, So good news all round.

    Government help in boosting fertility and births is all very well. But are those governments doing anything about affordable housing and family living wage secure jobs so the children can be raised?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dante
    Yes those measures are in the policy documents of the Govts I mention, You can Google them and if you can't read them you can translate them. Thanks
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Truth says:
    @Jose Allan Guerrero
    I am 26 years old and childless, I just don't have enough money to raise a family, unless I marry a way richer girl than me, also I have a passion for Geography and History, my dream is to travel the world, unfortunately I have only been in Mexico, United States and Panama, so all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia, I think is normal falling birth rates, the new generations aspire more than taking care of children, in no time we could travel to the moon thanks to space tourism and I would need more saved money to achieve that.

    I just don’t have enough money to raise a family… my dream is to travel the world, all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia

    ‘Bout says it all.

    One could of course replace, “travel” with “play video games”, “buy weapons” “refubish old motorcycles” or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tommy Robinson
    Why is there no story about Tommy Robinson getting arrested by the Thought Police? #FreeTommy

    Please post a link to the petition at change.org:

    https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. anon[508] • Disclaimer says:

    The war on men is finally bearing fruit. Congratulations ladies!

    In future all babies will be born in laboratories, because everyone will be either gay or transgender. Except Muslims, they’ll still have babies the regular way.

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And the babies will all be beautiful tall blonde and blue with medium slim builds big eyes and perfect features

    Check out the college newspaper ads for egg donation. All they want is 5’7 or more slim build natural blonde light brown hair and submit SAT scores.

    If you are a short chubby metizo they don’t want your eggs
    , @myself

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.
     
    So in the future, quality will replace quantity?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anon[508] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    If testosterone is way down, shouldn’t crime go way down? And shouldn’t the violent black teen males be better behaved.?

    Testosterone is going down because of obesity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    even adjusted for obesity the testosterone levels are down significantly from 30 years ago...another culprit is less men are doing manual labor and less men are working each year....back in the 1960s 95% of men worked, while today just 75% of men have jobs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. anon[508] • Disclaimer says:
    @Oldeguy
    Really do have to play the harrumphing old fogey on this one.
    The problem ( and I fully agree that's it's a very serious one indeed ) is not a decline in interest in sexual intercourse but rather a precipitous drop in the willingness to assume the duties and burdens of parenthood. The same thing has happened before over recorded history and is usually a sign of increased self absorption, decreased community morale and a society in its end stage.
    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant "hordes".

    Urbanization plays a big part as well. As more young people move to urban areas, housing becomes increasingly expensive. In the West Coast and Northeast, you have the added problem of rich foreign buyers esp. from China bidding up property prices. Combined that with high importation of foreign labor on H1b to depress wages, young people can’t afford to buy homes until well into their 30′s. Few people who live in apartments can afford to raise children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Renoman
    Raising Children is expensive vexing thankless expensive work. The World needs far less people as we don't have enough resources to support our current population. There are no jobs as automation has eliminated them, low birth rate -Perfect! It may be tough for a while not having sufficient money to pay pensions but hey, simple solution -kill the rich and take their money, they stole it all from us anyway so what's the problem? Diversity breeds crowding and War, fuck that shit, leave the immigration off the table and just make do with less for a while, it will straighten itself out soon enough.

    I agree with you. Sometimes I have the impression that most of the men who comment here don’t have children.

    It used to take 20 years to raise a child. God only knows if today’s 5 year olds will ever move out of their parents house.

    A fair number of White engineers end up teaching high school math for the security once they have kids.

    The 3 year contract layoff another 3 year contract layoff is fine for a single person but it’s too insecure for a father.

    The only time our government helped families was the 1945 to 1970 period. But that was only to build a prosperous consumer society

    But the capitalists rebelled against decent wages and secure jobs and the 1965 immigration act set American workers right back to the late 19th century when the capitalist scoured Europe for cheap and desperate labor

    Only difference is the imported labor is now non White.

    No one is going to have children when they don’t have prospects for a secure decent paid job

    Check what happened to fertility during the 1930s depression. It plummeted from the prosperous 1920s. And that was when birth control was iffy and a lot of people didn’t use it for religious reasons

    No money no babies. And all the grumpy old childless bachelors blaming women won’t help.

    So many more jobs will disappear. Robots are being developed to replace nurses It will start with nurses aids and then move up the ladder.

    A lot of X rays are transmitted directly to India and read by radiologists there. I’m sure more medical jobs will be taken over by robots and tech

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A big problem is that people my age buy into the "hookup culture" meme. In theory it might sound fun and liberating - but in reality it doesn't exist. Chasing this idea leads to frustration, degeneracy and ultimately dissatisfaction.

    Don't get me wrong, a few guys can pull it off. But if you're not in the 1% of guys, you're not getting laid very often from hookup strategies. If you get any, it's a massive amount of time and effort for 10 minutes of weak sex.

    As I discovered through experience, having a committed relationship gets you way, way, way more sex (assuming you're not waiting until marriage). It gives both partners time to explore, love, and discover what works for them. Lots of sex leads to a higher sex drive, and more masculinity and vitality. Once you have deep sex enough times, you will inevitably start to think about reproduction.

    Millenials have little sex because few are in relationships, as they have been sold a false bill of goods. Boomers had more relationships = more sex and eventually more children. Hookup culture and feminism are the problem. Women and men are miserable but don't realize it.

    Even 40 years ago studies were made showing that married and living together couples had sex 2 or 3 times a week . While singles even in a relationship had much less sex.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    The war on men is finally bearing fruit. Congratulations ladies!

    In future all babies will be born in laboratories, because everyone will be either gay or transgender. Except Muslims, they'll still have babies the regular way.

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.

    And the babies will all be beautiful tall blonde and blue with medium slim builds big eyes and perfect features

    Check out the college newspaper ads for egg donation. All they want is 5’7 or more slim build natural blonde light brown hair and submit SAT scores.

    If you are a short chubby metizo they don’t want your eggs

    Read More
    • Replies: @cornbeef
    I donated sperm a few years ago and couldn't believe how quickly my stuff "sold out."

    California Cryobank was the company I used and they tend to end up with a lot of mystery meat jizz sitting around.

    https://cryobank.com/search/?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. neutral says:
    @Rational
    SMOKING, DRINKING, FEMINISM AND ALIENISM--WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

    Sir, the "minorities" (i.e. colored people) are the majority in this world. Whites are the minority, on a global scale, already.

    Causes of white extinction:

    Smoking: Kills 400,000 whites each year in USA alone.
    Drinking: Russia dying out from drinking. DUI in USA, FUI (flying under the influence by pilots in Russia).
    Liberalism: Waiting past 25 to have children, when white women start becoming infertile.
    Men exploiting young women just for their bodies, wanting to have fun first, and when they are finally ready to marry (if at all), find all the women have been had fun with by other men and are too messed up emotionally to trust any man and too old to have children.
    Feminism: Women wanting careers first, marriage later--well, the body does not wait, but jobs can. Anti-family laws of left wing politicians.
    Alienism: White women falling prey to alien invaders.

    White Race: R.I.P.

    Those things mentioned are really just symptoms of the root cause. The root cause is the jewish control over white (formerly white) nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Those things mentioned are really just symptoms of the root cause. The root cause is the jewish control over white (formerly white) nations."

    Actually, the root causes are numerous, with "Jewish control" only lamented by conspiracy theorists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. ZPG. Does this mean an end to hysterical stories about Hispanic teenagers breeding like flies? Is nothing sacred? Next we will hear that they are learning English, or pouring into California’s universities. The horror.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Anything to justify your miscegenation
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    What is "ZPG"? (I'm sure it'll be obvious once you tell me.)

    From what I've read, it's the 1st generation immigrant populations that have the highest fertility rates. That means illegal Mexicans and C. Americans in particular (along with the Moslems). It's still not a good thing for us though, and, yeah, they were learning English, but California wants to remedy that again (and mucho kudos to our host who I believe was instrumental in the removal of that bilingual-ed crap... but .... it's baaaaack!)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Agrippa says: • Website

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.

    This would be stability only in a limited sense. If we earned as many dollars per year as our grandfathers, would we say income was “stable” over time?
    Mutation is more inevitable than inflation. Simple numerical stability would yield a population with constantly declining genetic quality. To be stable in both number and quality, a lot of extra children have to be born, so that there exists a subset of them that matches both the number and quality of the previous generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Factorize says:

    The TFR collapse could soon become a fertility moratorium. A forthcoming article in Nature Genetics is expected to reveal a substantial portion of the Genetics of Educational Attainment (and by extension intelligence).

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon. The rational fertility strategy would then be to postpone childbearing until this technology had matured. The TFR could then move towards 0.0.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon.
     
    I agree that we are on the verge of extensive genetic engineering. This is a world-wide phenomenon.

    My take on it is that the lower the population's current IQ, the more they will benefit from the IQ-enhancement technology.

    The lower your IQ, the more you'd want to avail of the technology for your children and descendants.

    Look for nations to have national IQ enhancement programs, and to subsidize genetic enhancement for their populations.

    At present, many accept jobs because of the health-care benefits.

    In the future, genetic enhancement at company expense will be one of the most desired perks on offer. THAT is the future!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. fnn says:

    Peak Oil liberal James Kunstler points out that “toxic masculinity” will always be with us:

    http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/you-think-its-all-about-guns/

    I will venture to say — against the tide of current sexual politics — that adolescence is much tougher for boys these days than it is for girls. Every boy in one way or another faces his archetypal hero’s journey, the hard-wired seeking to become powerful in one way or another, to accomplish something, to prevail over adversaries, to win the goodies of life. This country used to be a place where young men had many useful and practical paths to follow in enacting that eternal script.

    That has changed utterly in a couple of generations. Young men are being out-competed by young women who enjoy the advantage of being hard-wired to cooperate with others in the hive-like corporate workplaces that require tractable drones who will just follow instructions. The smart ones can easily avoid pregnancy, too, and still enjoy sex and all the exciting social games it entails.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    Interesting article. Thanks.

    I attended college in the late 70s and early 80s. At that time, there were more men than women in college.

    I taught college from the mid-80s to late 90s.

    The whole school structure is geared far more for the female mind than the male mind.

    MAny more ladies than men in college. This was especially true amongst the black population. Even so, the black male students I did have were more likely to be Caribbean. Very few black American males, even when I taught a class at a Negro College one term.

    Not nearly as much disparity between Asian males and females.

    By the late 90s, even science classes I taught where the students were almost all white had more women than men. And I gather the problem has gotten worse.

    (Except engineering schools. My son went to an engineering college, and the guys greatly outnumbered the ladies).

    What does this mean?

    It means we have, to a great extent, a lost generation of men. We have quite a few young men with not much of a future.

    That sort of situation very often ends badly. That sort of situation generally ends in war, or great civil unrest (such as the Cultural Revolution in China, where the PLA would supply weapons so that rival gangs of young men could kill each other off, as well as any adults they felt like killing).

    India and China have large surplus populations of young men. The US has a surplus population of young me with no future.

    The results may be interesting in the worst sense of the word.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Ironically, shouldn’t minorities themselves celebrate the decline in minority birth rates?

    After all, if less minorities are born, then less minorities will have to suffer as a result of White privilege and systemic racism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Jamie_NYC

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.

    I noticed that too Jamie-NYC, the Derb mis-stated the reason slightly. The “people who do not reproduce” are already included in the metric so that is not the reason. It is as you state, premature death rates and slight male/female misbalance. Any nonzero incidence of female mortality under age 40 or so will have an effect since that will lead to a bias in the fertility rate. Child mortality is perhaps a misnomer in this context.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. MW says:

    Nitpick: Replacement TFR’s aren’t above 2 because of those who don’t reproduce. The non-reproducers show up in the numbers just fine, as a zero at every age.

    It’s because not all women survive to the end of their childbearing years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Correct, but even more accurately, in the modern age it is mostly because there are 1.05 boys born for every 1 girl.

    In the era when mortality - especially maternal mortality - was far higher, replacement level TFR was around 2.5.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Dante says:
    @Anon
    Government help in boosting fertility and births is all very well. But are those governments doing anything about affordable housing and family living wage secure jobs so the children can be raised?

    Yes those measures are in the policy documents of the Govts I mention, You can Google them and if you can’t read them you can translate them. Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Notice how much the Native American population is collapsing.

    Adding onto this, Native Americans are the group most likely to marry outside their ethnic group — even more than Asian females.

    Which means, we are seeing the continued destruction and replacement of the original population. Replacing the original stock whites and the slave-descendant blacks will take a little longer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. DFH says:
    @Frederick V. Reed
    ZPG. Does this mean an end to hysterical stories about Hispanic teenagers breeding like flies? Is nothing sacred? Next we will hear that they are learning English, or pouring into California's universities. The horror.

    Anything to justify your miscegenation

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @fnn
    Peak Oil liberal James Kunstler points out that "toxic masculinity" will always be with us:
    http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/you-think-its-all-about-guns/

    I will venture to say — against the tide of current sexual politics — that adolescence is much tougher for boys these days than it is for girls. Every boy in one way or another faces his archetypal hero’s journey, the hard-wired seeking to become powerful in one way or another, to accomplish something, to prevail over adversaries, to win the goodies of life. This country used to be a place where young men had many useful and practical paths to follow in enacting that eternal script.

    That has changed utterly in a couple of generations. Young men are being out-competed by young women who enjoy the advantage of being hard-wired to cooperate with others in the hive-like corporate workplaces that require tractable drones who will just follow instructions. The smart ones can easily avoid pregnancy, too, and still enjoy sex and all the exciting social games it entails.
     

    Interesting article. Thanks.

    I attended college in the late 70s and early 80s. At that time, there were more men than women in college.

    I taught college from the mid-80s to late 90s.

    The whole school structure is geared far more for the female mind than the male mind.

    MAny more ladies than men in college. This was especially true amongst the black population. Even so, the black male students I did have were more likely to be Caribbean. Very few black American males, even when I taught a class at a Negro College one term.

    Not nearly as much disparity between Asian males and females.

    By the late 90s, even science classes I taught where the students were almost all white had more women than men. And I gather the problem has gotten worse.

    (Except engineering schools. My son went to an engineering college, and the guys greatly outnumbered the ladies).

    What does this mean?

    It means we have, to a great extent, a lost generation of men. We have quite a few young men with not much of a future.

    That sort of situation very often ends badly. That sort of situation generally ends in war, or great civil unrest (such as the Cultural Revolution in China, where the PLA would supply weapons so that rival gangs of young men could kill each other off, as well as any adults they felt like killing).

    India and China have large surplus populations of young men. The US has a surplus population of young me with no future.

    The results may be interesting in the worst sense of the word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. gwynedd1 says:

    I would want little to do with Hispanic women in the US as it is . Given I sat next to a stunningly beautiful young Colombian women not too long ago on an airplane, and found it a very pleasant way to pass the time speaking with her, it seems to be the problem is an acquired one. I do not even want to think about the morbidly obese thing she might become outside her native region.

    However if I were also a Hispanic man , I would also likely be horribly obese myself. The depleted levels of energy and testosterone would probably result in me fapping on the couch once a month.

    Searching for at least on cause I offer that they find each other repulsive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @Anon
    I almost never see tattoos, especially on people under 35. I think it’s gone out of fashion

    Whaaat? Not where I live. It seems that the largest area of tattoo coverage is on the flesh of people from 25 to 40. (Though coverage increases as skin area increases, taking me right back to the point of my earlier comment.)

    Really, I’d be glad if that is the trend, Anon-257. It’s gonna take a while if this stuff is tailing off, as, well, they stay on forever. Taking small ones off is possible, I’ve heard, but not easy. BTW, I don’t mind some small hearts or butterflies or anchors on guys that were in the Navy – that sort of thing. It’s the ones that cover a significant portion of a limb, belly, etc. that are a real shame and a sacrilege.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    I assumed he was being ironic. My staff and clientele is largely under 30, and there's not a single uninked person among them. "I'm sore from my new tattoo" is an excuse heard virtually every week.

    Disney and Harry Potter themes seem to be common, which throws something of a monkey wrench into the classic primitive -> sailor -> outlaw -> punk rock evolution of the practice.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Not so long ago in the UK, tats were for sailors (iirc some Royals with naval service had them), bikers or criminals, and male earrings for sailors or gypsies. Now they're all over the place, maybe more on women than men.

    I was called for jury service recently, and about a third of the sixty-odd prospective jurors (chosen for three or four trials) had visible tattoos.

    A tattoo on a pretty girl is like that moustache on the Mona Lisa. On the other hand, they're signifiers (as a woman smoking was sixty years back) that the girl is what used to be called 'fast' (today's equivalent is probably 'DTF').
    , @ChrisZ
    Achmed, I have a hypothesis that tattooing (at least as practiced today) is a form of self-mutilation. In earlier ages, various forms of mutilation--tearing out hair, clawing your skin, ripping clothes, e.g.--were associated with grief. Degrading your appearance, ruining your attractiveness either temporarily or permanently, was a way of expressing grief, dealing with it, or signaling to the public that you were under its sway. Maybe in this sense the tradition of wearing black for mourning was a low-grade form of self-mutilation, or a hedge against people resorting to more extreme forms of it. Similarly the strange dietary contagions that cycle through our culture--anorexia on the one hand, obesity on the other--may originate in some sort of grieving. Perhaps there's something biological about the connection between these kinds of physical distortions and deeplt negative emotional states.

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I've come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives--deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie--that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it's been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Frederick V. Reed
    ZPG. Does this mean an end to hysterical stories about Hispanic teenagers breeding like flies? Is nothing sacred? Next we will hear that they are learning English, or pouring into California's universities. The horror.

    What is “ZPG”? (I’m sure it’ll be obvious once you tell me.)

    From what I’ve read, it’s the 1st generation immigrant populations that have the highest fertility rates. That means illegal Mexicans and C. Americans in particular (along with the Moslems). It’s still not a good thing for us though, and, yeah, they were learning English, but California wants to remedy that again (and mucho kudos to our host who I believe was instrumental in the removal of that bilingual-ed crap… but …. it’s baaaaack!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    An acronym for Zero Population Growth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Anon
    If testosterone is way down, shouldn’t crime go way down? And shouldn’t the violent black teen males be better behaved.?

    Crime has gone way down, especially from the peak years around the 70′s and 90′s. Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were “freed” during the Civil Rights era.

    Pinker has a pretty good explanation in “Better Angels”. He doesn’t cite testosterone, but it could certainly be a factor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft
    >Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were “freed” during the Civil Rights era.

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @John Bushcroft
    And this shows precisely why "replacement fertility" is a sham. It is masked by the bigger problem of declining white population size. The number of white people of childbearing age today will never be able to make up for the dieoff of baby boomers, even if they were birthing 5 children per woman.

    Hence we can never actually replace the white population. "Replacement ferility" is an impossiblity. We have taken an irreversible hit from 50 years of white female chidlessness. There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again. It seems every country that passes the 1.80 children per woman milestone crosses a "point of no return" and never recovers.

    re “point of no return”:
    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished. A population decline, like Japan is experiencing, is manageable and even reversible on a long enough timeline. Going from 90% White with a 10% Black underclass to 50% White with a 35% Brown/Black underclass is irreversible. In the latter situation, the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft

    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished.
     
    Japan doesn't have minimal immigration anymore (it's ratcheting up out of necessity) but they have zero chance of replacing their peak population on their own after 50 years of fertility decline. Which also means they have no opportunity to solve their debt crisis or their other problems such as rural decay without large scale immigration. There's no realistic way to invision a future world where males have restored patriarchal dominance and forced women to breed the necessary amount of children to breathe life back in to first world countries, short of a total civilization collapse, which would cause untold numbers of deaths due to nuclear power plants going prompt crtical everywhere, food shortages, etc.
    , @myself

    Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.
     
    And why should this be in any way surprising?

    Neo-feudalism and patron-client relationships are the overwhelmingly dominant societal pattern of the Americas, (overwhelming in terms of the populations that live under such systems). Seen from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande, and in every heavily minority locale across the Ubited States and Canada.

    Wealth has little to do with it, it's probably cultural. Even Canada has become divided along ethnic lines. The United States is even further along the same path.

    Even IF the ethno-cultural percentages stabilize at current levels (and there is ZERO sign that's happening), America is ALREADY too racially divided. We will become even more divided in the future, until we go full-on segregation once more - what was old will be new again!

    Interestingly, you know who else transitioned from a somewhat meritocratic to a quasi-feudal society?

    That's absolutely right!

    Rome, shortly before it fell completely, never to rise again.

    A disturbing parallel.

    , @manorchurch

    ...the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.
     
    We already are a colder version of Brazil, where a brown/white divide characterizes urban environments on, or close to, the sea coast. For that matter, factions in southern Brazil are agitating for separating Parana, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul into a separate country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Rosie says:
    @George
    I think this is relevant, but don't know why.

    The evolutionary psychologist explains that attractive people tend to have girls, a trend that is making women far more attractive on average than men.

    http://bigthink.com/videos/why-women-are-more-attractive-than-men

    The evolutionary psychologist explains that attractive people tend to have girls, a trend that is making women far more attractive on average than men.

    Fortunately for men, we’re not obsessed with looks, so we overlook your relative ugliness.

    https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sollipsist
    That IS good news. Things have never been so good for the ugly guys; the good looking guys are too busy with each other to provide much competition, and the unattractive women who also don't care about looks tend to pair off nicely. End result: ugly guys and beautiful women with an unhindered path to each other, just as nature intended :D
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @MW
    Nitpick: Replacement TFR's aren't above 2 because of those who don't reproduce. The non-reproducers show up in the numbers just fine, as a zero at every age.

    It's because not all women survive to the end of their childbearing years.

    Correct, but even more accurately, in the modern age it is mostly because there are 1.05 boys born for every 1 girl.

    In the era when mortality – especially maternal mortality – was far higher, replacement level TFR was around 2.5.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaat? Not where I live. It seems that the largest area of tattoo coverage is on the flesh of people from 25 to 40. (Though coverage increases as skin area increases, taking me right back to the point of my earlier comment.)

    Really, I'd be glad if that is the trend, Anon-257. It's gonna take a while if this stuff is tailing off, as, well, they stay on forever. Taking small ones off is possible, I've heard, but not easy. BTW, I don't mind some small hearts or butterflies or anchors on guys that were in the Navy - that sort of thing. It's the ones that cover a significant portion of a limb, belly, etc. that are a real shame and a sacrilege.

    I assumed he was being ironic. My staff and clientele is largely under 30, and there’s not a single uninked person among them. “I’m sore from my new tattoo” is an excuse heard virtually every week.

    Disney and Harry Potter themes seem to be common, which throws something of a monkey wrench into the classic primitive -> sailor -> outlaw -> punk rock evolution of the practice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Rosie

    The evolutionary psychologist explains that attractive people tend to have girls, a trend that is making women far more attractive on average than men.
     
    Fortunately for men, we're not obsessed with looks, so we overlook your relative ugliness.

    https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/18/okcupid-inbox-attractive/

    That IS good news. Things have never been so good for the ugly guys; the good looking guys are too busy with each other to provide much competition, and the unattractive women who also don’t care about looks tend to pair off nicely. End result: ugly guys and beautiful women with an unhindered path to each other, just as nature intended :D

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    True. We're fine with ugly dudes. We only have a problem with royal ugly dudes older than our grandpas.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohsdMODHO8E
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Rosie says:
    @Sollipsist
    That IS good news. Things have never been so good for the ugly guys; the good looking guys are too busy with each other to provide much competition, and the unattractive women who also don't care about looks tend to pair off nicely. End result: ugly guys and beautiful women with an unhindered path to each other, just as nature intended :D

    True. We’re fine with ugly dudes. We only have a problem with royal ugly dudes older than our grandpas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Jose Allan Guerrero
    I am 26 years old and childless, I just don't have enough money to raise a family, unless I marry a way richer girl than me, also I have a passion for Geography and History, my dream is to travel the world, unfortunately I have only been in Mexico, United States and Panama, so all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia, I think is normal falling birth rates, the new generations aspire more than taking care of children, in no time we could travel to the moon thanks to space tourism and I would need more saved money to achieve that.

    You don’t have enough money to raise a family, but you expect to travel the world? Priorities, my friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It's okay, from his name he is hispanic. There are far too many hispanic babies already. Don't poke the bear...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. notanon says:

    whatever they’re putting in the food supply to feminize men doesn’t effect 1st generation immigrants – only their kids

    the high birth rate among new 1st generation immigrants will still be enough – unless there aren’t any.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. derb is really really slow at times, doesn’t he realized this also proves his doom and gloom to be bullshit, scare mongering?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. @RadicalCenter
    You don't have enough money to raise a family, but you expect to travel the world? Priorities, my friend.

    It’s okay, from his name he is hispanic. There are far too many hispanic babies already. Don’t poke the bear…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Agreed! On second thought, he should spend his life traveling and never have children. Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Cicerone says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Cicerone has some fantastic information, but their Twitter feed is too short! Does he post that to a website or something with more graphs ?

    I try to put more stuff on twitter in the future, I promise! ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    I try to put more stuff on twitter in the future, I promise! ;)
     
    Oh, good, you are such a humanist. We must all emulate your ideals! Let's put everything we can think of on Twitter, and gush effusively. We will save this country yet! We will never run out of new emojis!

    Sardonicisms aside, why does no one see the widespread sickness -- pathological social dysfunction in the sense of what "social" really means -- in millions of no-status individuals devotedly "following" celebrity individuals? It is a form of mass conversion from the American ideal of the ruggedly independent individual, to cotillions of touchy-feely-weepy cuddlers-with-friends.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    The sensationalist headline is quite misleading, and annoying. Fertility is slightly lower for minorities, but hardly “collapsed”. Hispanic birth rate esp. is still above 2.0. Cry me a river.

    Earth can celebrate the day birthrate of all non-whites dip below that of whites. Until then this planet is headed for doom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    This is very interesting! This represents an amazing opportunity for Donald Trump. But he has to act swiftly.

    With falling minority birth rates, he must immediately build the wall and crack down hard on illegal aliens. A low birth rate does no good if you're still importing millions of Mexicans and Central Americans. Just over 50% of newborns in the USA are white. How many of those are anchor babies to illegal aliens?

    Secondly, birth control must be given in the inner cities, as with abortion. Trump is wrong to defund planned parenthood. Put one in ever corner in the ghetto, I say! Alot of the people there are barely humans, anyways.

    This, plus an improving economy for working class whites could actually improve the demographic situation of the United States. As Anatoly mentioned, the South was barely impacted by lower birth rates (although they also suffer from a high Negro reproduction rate).

    The time is now to act.

    “.Just over 50% of newborns in the USA are white. How many of those are anchor babies to illegal aliens?

    According to the Pew Hispanic Center, roughly 8-10% of all births are to illegal aliens and since we call assume nearly all illegals are non-white, the white share would go up by large single/even double digits if despicable cucks Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell finally passed legislation ending this practice. Almost equally frustrating is the refusal of Trump to use his bully pulpit to push the matter the way he did back when he was trying to get our votes/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Achmed E. Newman
    What is "ZPG"? (I'm sure it'll be obvious once you tell me.)

    From what I've read, it's the 1st generation immigrant populations that have the highest fertility rates. That means illegal Mexicans and C. Americans in particular (along with the Moslems). It's still not a good thing for us though, and, yeah, they were learning English, but California wants to remedy that again (and mucho kudos to our host who I believe was instrumental in the removal of that bilingual-ed crap... but .... it's baaaaack!)

    An acronym for Zero Population Growth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Thanks, Peter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaat? Not where I live. It seems that the largest area of tattoo coverage is on the flesh of people from 25 to 40. (Though coverage increases as skin area increases, taking me right back to the point of my earlier comment.)

    Really, I'd be glad if that is the trend, Anon-257. It's gonna take a while if this stuff is tailing off, as, well, they stay on forever. Taking small ones off is possible, I've heard, but not easy. BTW, I don't mind some small hearts or butterflies or anchors on guys that were in the Navy - that sort of thing. It's the ones that cover a significant portion of a limb, belly, etc. that are a real shame and a sacrilege.

    Not so long ago in the UK, tats were for sailors (iirc some Royals with naval service had them), bikers or criminals, and male earrings for sailors or gypsies. Now they’re all over the place, maybe more on women than men.

    I was called for jury service recently, and about a third of the sixty-odd prospective jurors (chosen for three or four trials) had visible tattoos.

    A tattoo on a pretty girl is like that moustache on the Mona Lisa. On the other hand, they’re signifiers (as a woman smoking was sixty years back) that the girl is what used to be called ‘fast’ (today’s equivalent is probably ‘DTF’).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Agreed, tattoos are abominations.

    If she's really fast, she has a tattoo in a place where you can't see it until she's undressed. I remember a yellow smiley face with the caption, "Thank You. Come Again!" right next to the Delta of Venus.

    That shouldn't interfere with breeding, however.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. myself says:
    @anon
    The war on men is finally bearing fruit. Congratulations ladies!

    In future all babies will be born in laboratories, because everyone will be either gay or transgender. Except Muslims, they'll still have babies the regular way.

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.

    So in the future, quality will replace quantity?

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    To be clear, I am only stating the evident thinking behind fewer but more enhanced children. As to the merits of said thinking, I am agnostic.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It seems likely that only a very small percentage of parents will be able to afford this genetic tinkering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. theMann says:

    Anybody else think that an overall decline in fertility and a massive upward swing in std’s might be related? And, tactfully as possible, especially for minorities?

    Does our modern diet intrinsically lower testosterone or is it also a lack of exercise in the teen years? All those women wee-weeing estrogen into the environment can’t be having an effect, right? And no reason to worry about the electronic soup we live in, that wouldn’t cause sterility at all……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Large part of decrease in TFP is caused by tempo effect that is change in timing of fertility. By measure of developed countries US has relatively low mean age of first birth and now it is converging. What is important, completed fertility for last known cohorts is above replacement:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    It seems that your "last known cohort" terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom; and if that was barely above replacement, then the projections since then are totally out of whack. Just look at the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. Depopulation is obviously occurring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. ChrisZ says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Whaaat? Not where I live. It seems that the largest area of tattoo coverage is on the flesh of people from 25 to 40. (Though coverage increases as skin area increases, taking me right back to the point of my earlier comment.)

    Really, I'd be glad if that is the trend, Anon-257. It's gonna take a while if this stuff is tailing off, as, well, they stay on forever. Taking small ones off is possible, I've heard, but not easy. BTW, I don't mind some small hearts or butterflies or anchors on guys that were in the Navy - that sort of thing. It's the ones that cover a significant portion of a limb, belly, etc. that are a real shame and a sacrilege.

    Achmed, I have a hypothesis that tattooing (at least as practiced today) is a form of self-mutilation. In earlier ages, various forms of mutilation–tearing out hair, clawing your skin, ripping clothes, e.g.–were associated with grief. Degrading your appearance, ruining your attractiveness either temporarily or permanently, was a way of expressing grief, dealing with it, or signaling to the public that you were under its sway. Maybe in this sense the tradition of wearing black for mourning was a low-grade form of self-mutilation, or a hedge against people resorting to more extreme forms of it. Similarly the strange dietary contagions that cycle through our culture–anorexia on the one hand, obesity on the other–may originate in some sort of grieving. Perhaps there’s something biological about the connection between these kinds of physical distortions and deeplt negative emotional states.

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I’ve come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives–deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie–that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it’s been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.

    Read More
    • Agree: manorchurch
    • Replies: @Joseph the Discalced
    Agreed. The subtext on a tattoo for a millennial is, Let me tell you about my parents' divorce. And the subtext for ink on a Boomer female is, Let me tell you about MY divorce.
    , @dfordoom

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I’ve come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives–deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie–that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it’s been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.
     
    Or a deeply self-pitying self-indulgent person.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Factorize says:

    One aspect of the gender divide that has received inadequate attention is the asymmetric nature of expectations. A few of my high achieving friends did not survive university. They were all male. The stress that is present in many male dominated subjects such as engineering can be overwhelming. In some of the more extreme of these subjects, it seemed as though 100% of the students failed. Guys are hardwired to seek out a mission, even if there is essentially no chance that they will achieve their intended purpose. With this mentality, many extremely intelligent males are lead to believe that they have failed. For example, because they did not prove string theory etc. .

    Given this, I was quite surprised while web surfing to find completion rates of an online university. 100% completion rates for some of their courses! Notably these courses were typically female areas of study such as nursing. These graduates would then have a clear pathway to enter a high paying job. Noting the different definitions of success that are being applied to males and females might help explain the apparent gender balance that now exists on campus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. myself says:
    @Factorize
    The TFR collapse could soon become a fertility moratorium. A forthcoming article in Nature Genetics is expected to reveal a substantial portion of the Genetics of Educational Attainment (and by extension intelligence).

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon. The rational fertility strategy would then be to postpone childbearing until this technology had matured. The TFR could then move towards 0.0.

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon.

    I agree that we are on the verge of extensive genetic engineering. This is a world-wide phenomenon.

    My take on it is that the lower the population’s current IQ, the more they will benefit from the IQ-enhancement technology.

    The lower your IQ, the more you’d want to avail of the technology for your children and descendants.

    Look for nations to have national IQ enhancement programs, and to subsidize genetic enhancement for their populations.

    At present, many accept jobs because of the health-care benefits.

    In the future, genetic enhancement at company expense will be one of the most desired perks on offer. THAT is the future!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    Thank you for replying, myself! There has been a notable silence about the approaching IQ upgrade on unz. Clearly the entire apple cart will soon be upset: Time to prepare.

    I tend to think that at least initially this will be more about divergence than convergence at least over the medium term especially between developed and developing nations. Typical middle class Americans will have the necessary resources to genetically enhance their children. This will be the new industry of the 21st Century. America could truly be the leader on this. Yet, for most developing nations one would expect that they could lag. They have certainly lagged with rolling out genetic technology for single gene disorders. In some of the least developed nations, it is terrifying to imagine what could happen if IQ enhancement were introduced amidst extreme poverty and ongoing warfare. The potential for a child with 300 IQ to develop within such a context should concern everyone on this planet (especially considering the likely planetary scale range of any weapon system that such a child might be able to invent).

    Yes, the returns on investment would be so enormously large that there likely could be a wide range of interests that might step forward and offer to provide the financing. Amplifying human potential by 10 fold in every generation is simply too large of an opportunity to pass up.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out? My guess is that the time horizon of the Genetic Singularity has been reached. Total fertility collapse in developed nations should now be expected within 2 years. The TFR could move close to 0.0. I have already heard of a poster to a blog deciding to postpone childbearing until the IQ uplift occurs. This would seem to me the rational choice. Those children born immediately before the uplift might simply have no future. The entire generation might need to be placed onto public assistance for life. There is no possible way that a generation could reasonably compete with another generation that had a 1 SD IQ advantage.
    , @Travis
    The low IQ populations will be much less likely utilize technology to improve the IQ of their children,...they are more likely to use the technology to produce stronger, bigger more athletic male children.

    Low IQ women today can easily choose high IQ males to mate with...yet they do not. They avoid them and choose to have children with strong alpha males, often high school dropouts who will never provide four them or marry them...

    If Low IQ females were given free high IQ sperm they would avoid it. But they probably would choose to be inseminated by sperm from NBA athletes or celebrities like Justin Timberlake and they would probably pay thousands of dollars to acquire sperm from NBA athletes and celebrities...

    If America wanted to increase the IQ of our population, the fastest method would be sterilizing all women on welfare...and encouraging poor females to get inseminated with sperm from high IQ males...but this is not politically feasible..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anonymous Jew
    re "point of no return":
    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished. A population decline, like Japan is experiencing, is manageable and even reversible on a long enough timeline. Going from 90% White with a 10% Black underclass to 50% White with a 35% Brown/Black underclass is irreversible. In the latter situation, the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished.

    Japan doesn’t have minimal immigration anymore (it’s ratcheting up out of necessity) but they have zero chance of replacing their peak population on their own after 50 years of fertility decline. Which also means they have no opportunity to solve their debt crisis or their other problems such as rural decay without large scale immigration. There’s no realistic way to invision a future world where males have restored patriarchal dominance and forced women to breed the necessary amount of children to breathe life back in to first world countries, short of a total civilization collapse, which would cause untold numbers of deaths due to nuclear power plants going prompt crtical everywhere, food shortages, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    Japan is still crowded with expensive square foot housing costs, so a few more decades of negative population growth will improve the quality of life for them. There is no problem with their debt overhang since they own 100% of their debt on a net basis, and own much US debt too due to trade-surplus-linked saving. There is no foreign-owned-debt overhang. They need to make some economic adjustments to deal with their ageing demographic profile, but that involves simple Economics 101 market-based adjustments. Immigration on the other hand would be disastrous for them and their quality of life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. myself says:

    Not meant to be a thread-jack, but genetic science is just the tip of the iceberg.

    The advances in Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, non-genetic enhancement (like ultra-efficient organs, carbon-nanotubes for bones, neural-pathway tweaking etc), and Nano-Technology are pretty breathtaking.

    Some countries are going full-steam ahead with these research areas, and are expediting deployment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @Anonymous Jew
    Crime has gone way down, especially from the peak years around the 70's and 90's. Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were "freed" during the Civil Rights era.

    Pinker has a pretty good explanation in "Better Angels". He doesn't cite testosterone, but it could certainly be a factor.

    >Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were “freed” during the Civil Rights era.

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.
    , @Randal

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.
     
    I get the impression you simply have no conception of the sheer scale of the hugely increased predilection for violent crime of black men in the US compared to non-black, nor its persistence over time. That's hardly surprising given the active discouragement of any mention of it in the societies of the modern US sphere, but you can educate yourself by reading the seminal work on this very site:

    Race and Crime in America

    Unz includes figures going back to 1985 for the correlations between rates of homicide, robbery and violent crime, and racial populations in US cities, and if you are honest they will shock you. If you are not honest, you will resort to denial in order to keep your opinions within the bounds of what is acceptable received opinion in the aforementioned societies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. myself says:
    @myself

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.
     
    So in the future, quality will replace quantity?

    To be clear, I am only stating the evident thinking behind fewer but more enhanced children. As to the merits of said thinking, I am agnostic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. myself says:
    @Anonymous Jew
    re "point of no return":
    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished. A population decline, like Japan is experiencing, is manageable and even reversible on a long enough timeline. Going from 90% White with a 10% Black underclass to 50% White with a 35% Brown/Black underclass is irreversible. In the latter situation, the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    And why should this be in any way surprising?

    Neo-feudalism and patron-client relationships are the overwhelmingly dominant societal pattern of the Americas, (overwhelming in terms of the populations that live under such systems). Seen from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande, and in every heavily minority locale across the Ubited States and Canada.

    Wealth has little to do with it, it’s probably cultural. Even Canada has become divided along ethnic lines. The United States is even further along the same path.

    Even IF the ethno-cultural percentages stabilize at current levels (and there is ZERO sign that’s happening), America is ALREADY too racially divided. We will become even more divided in the future, until we go full-on segregation once more – what was old will be new again!

    Interestingly, you know who else transitioned from a somewhat meritocratic to a quasi-feudal society?

    That’s absolutely right!

    Rome, shortly before it fell completely, never to rise again.

    A disturbing parallel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself
    Sorry for the typo - meant United States
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. myself says:
    @myself

    Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.
     
    And why should this be in any way surprising?

    Neo-feudalism and patron-client relationships are the overwhelmingly dominant societal pattern of the Americas, (overwhelming in terms of the populations that live under such systems). Seen from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande, and in every heavily minority locale across the Ubited States and Canada.

    Wealth has little to do with it, it's probably cultural. Even Canada has become divided along ethnic lines. The United States is even further along the same path.

    Even IF the ethno-cultural percentages stabilize at current levels (and there is ZERO sign that's happening), America is ALREADY too racially divided. We will become even more divided in the future, until we go full-on segregation once more - what was old will be new again!

    Interestingly, you know who else transitioned from a somewhat meritocratic to a quasi-feudal society?

    That's absolutely right!

    Rome, shortly before it fell completely, never to rise again.

    A disturbing parallel.

    Sorry for the typo – meant United States

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Immigrants will fix this problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. TheJester says:
    @Thomm
    Keep in mind as well that Hispanic-white intermarriage rates are very high, which leads to Hispanic birth rates converging down to the white birth rate (which itself is lowering).

    About a third of all 2nd-gen or later Hispanics intermarry with whites. As do about a fourth of all 2nd-gen or later Asians.

    Matches made in Heaven …?

    Having known a number of Hispanic boys and their families over the past decade, I noticed that the high school boys seemed to have had the “hots” for white girls, including my daughter.

    Let me posture a reason: Just as in the Caribbean among blacks, there is pressure in the Hispanic mestizo communities to “white” the family to improve their social and economic status, something denied them in the strict caste-based cultures of Latin America. Otherwise, how can one explain Hispanic males with an obvious Amerindian heritage who have never dated a Hispanic female and have no intention of ever doing so?

    I have also known a number of white males who were very interested in Hispanic females. The latter tend to be warm, feminine, and very interested in family formation with white males … perhaps their version of “whiting” the family. Hispanic females are a breath of fresh air when compared to white feminists who seem predisposed to be hostile toward anything and everything white and male.

    Not to be left behind, the white feminists are also finding their place … sort of. Flying in the face of the classic female practice of hypergamy, they are showing a new and heightened interest in black males. It now seems de rigueur for white professional women to sport mulatto children in the restaurants and shopping malls. This is “virtue signaling” of the first order. Indeed, I’m assuming that they feel empowered and reassured to be able to find someone with whom to share stories about white male oppression and their common victimhood.

    So, everybody wins … sort of!

    Read More
    • LOL: Clyde
    • Replies: @Rosie

    So, everybody wins … sort of!
     
    The White "feminists" whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html
    , @RadicalCenter
    Hispanic girls in the USA tend to be warm and feminine? Yeesh. Maybe outside Los Angeles area. Maybe not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon[452] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    If the Hispanic birth rate is falling this much, then Ron Unz will turn out to be right about the Hispanic crime rate converging to that of whites.

    Well duh , his IQ is like 1,488 or something.
    Btw, are we talking Hispanics or just people with Hispanic sounding names??

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Factorize says:
    @myself

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon.
     
    I agree that we are on the verge of extensive genetic engineering. This is a world-wide phenomenon.

    My take on it is that the lower the population's current IQ, the more they will benefit from the IQ-enhancement technology.

    The lower your IQ, the more you'd want to avail of the technology for your children and descendants.

    Look for nations to have national IQ enhancement programs, and to subsidize genetic enhancement for their populations.

    At present, many accept jobs because of the health-care benefits.

    In the future, genetic enhancement at company expense will be one of the most desired perks on offer. THAT is the future!

    Thank you for replying, myself! There has been a notable silence about the approaching IQ upgrade on unz. Clearly the entire apple cart will soon be upset: Time to prepare.

    I tend to think that at least initially this will be more about divergence than convergence at least over the medium term especially between developed and developing nations. Typical middle class Americans will have the necessary resources to genetically enhance their children. This will be the new industry of the 21st Century. America could truly be the leader on this. Yet, for most developing nations one would expect that they could lag. They have certainly lagged with rolling out genetic technology for single gene disorders. In some of the least developed nations, it is terrifying to imagine what could happen if IQ enhancement were introduced amidst extreme poverty and ongoing warfare. The potential for a child with 300 IQ to develop within such a context should concern everyone on this planet (especially considering the likely planetary scale range of any weapon system that such a child might be able to invent).

    Yes, the returns on investment would be so enormously large that there likely could be a wide range of interests that might step forward and offer to provide the financing. Amplifying human potential by 10 fold in every generation is simply too large of an opportunity to pass up.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out? My guess is that the time horizon of the Genetic Singularity has been reached. Total fertility collapse in developed nations should now be expected within 2 years. The TFR could move close to 0.0. I have already heard of a poster to a blog deciding to postpone childbearing until the IQ uplift occurs. This would seem to me the rational choice. Those children born immediately before the uplift might simply have no future. The entire generation might need to be placed onto public assistance for life. There is no possible way that a generation could reasonably compete with another generation that had a 1 SD IQ advantage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @myself

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?
     
    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, dwarfism, giantism etc. - mostly gone.

    After that, I don't know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence - obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else - athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color - is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today - instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise "moment" of genetic uplift, I don't think we'll pin it down. It's not a moment, it's a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a "one and done" phenomenon. There won't be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards - it will just keep going.

    And that's just on the "meat" side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Typical middle-class Americans are in debt and have a negative net worth excluding their homes. Many, many millions have a negative net worth overall because they don’t own a home or are underwater on their home.

    There is no reason to think that they will be able to afford genetic engineering. They will be more worried about finding a safe place to sleep, getting enough food, power outages and brownouts (coming in LA and coming to the rest of you thereafter), and avoiding violence at the hands of the even poorer, angry, poorly assimilated, nonwhite MAJORITY.
    , @Travis
    we are not close to upgrading the IQ of our offspring...first we will expand embryo selection (currently embryo selection is utilized to avoid some genetic diseases and select the sex of a child). Wealthy Parents will have the ability to select the best embryo of the dozens they create in vitro...but even if such methods of in vitro fertilization were less costly and available to the poor, most Americans would select for Height, eye color and athletic ability over an embryo with a slightly higher IQ but having the wrong eye color.

    The typical parent with an IQ of 100 does not want children with an IQ greater than 110. They certainly will not pay thousands of dollars to gain 10 IQ points. They will continue to procreate the natural way and use the thousands of dollars they saved to go to Disneyland...but if they were able to select a child for traits such as height and beauty they would mortgage their home to get a pretty daughter or an athletic son.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    Birth rate is highly correlated with women’s education level. As women’s education level rises, birthrate tends to go down. Few college educated women today have more than 2 children, if they marry at all, Mormon’s excepted. Birthrate by white women has been below replacement for decades, because as a group they are the best educated and career oriented. Now black and hispanic women are finally catching up.

    There has been more than a few articles in msm about the plight of college educated black women in finding a mate. Most college educated black men want to marry white women, and college educated black women do not want to date non college educated black men, understandably. Hispanic women are having the same problem. Black and hispanic women are getting college degrees at a far higher rate than their men. The difference probably is hispanic women have a better chance of finding a white husband than black women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. @Peter Johnson
    An acronym for Zero Population Growth.

    Thanks, Peter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Rosie says:

    Birthrate by white women has been below replacement for decades, because as a group they are the best educated and career oriented.

    Not really.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/better_life_lab/2017/11/09/the_stem_paradox_why_are_muslim_majority_countries_producing_so_many_female.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    The article talks about women getting STEM degrees in Muslim countries. White women may be getting STEM degrees at a lower rate than white men, but they are getting college degrees at a higher rate than men. They are also the most successful group of women in the work force compared to black, Asian or hispanic women. Most of the women in upper management positions are white.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Rosie says:
    @TheJester
    Matches made in Heaven ...?

    Having known a number of Hispanic boys and their families over the past decade, I noticed that the high school boys seemed to have had the "hots" for white girls, including my daughter.

    Let me posture a reason: Just as in the Caribbean among blacks, there is pressure in the Hispanic mestizo communities to "white" the family to improve their social and economic status, something denied them in the strict caste-based cultures of Latin America. Otherwise, how can one explain Hispanic males with an obvious Amerindian heritage who have never dated a Hispanic female and have no intention of ever doing so?

    I have also known a number of white males who were very interested in Hispanic females. The latter tend to be warm, feminine, and very interested in family formation with white males ... perhaps their version of "whiting" the family. Hispanic females are a breath of fresh air when compared to white feminists who seem predisposed to be hostile toward anything and everything white and male.

    Not to be left behind, the white feminists are also finding their place ... sort of. Flying in the face of the classic female practice of hypergamy, they are showing a new and heightened interest in black males. It now seems de rigueur for white professional women to sport mulatto children in the restaurants and shopping malls. This is "virtue signaling" of the first order. Indeed, I'm assuming that they feel empowered and reassured to be able to find someone with whom to share stories about white male oppression and their common victimhood.

    So, everybody wins ... sort of!

    So, everybody wins … sort of!

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.
     
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :

    http://blonlee.com/ugly-feminists/

    Thanks for proving that White Trashionalism and radical feminism are almost identical ideologies.
    , @anon

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.
     
    It's true boys get their IQ from their mothers, because they only have 1 X chromosome and it comes from their mothers. But girls have 2 X chromosomes and they could also get their intelligence from their fathers. Among people I know the smartest boys are often boys of mothers with STEM degrees.

    Most women with STEM degrees are not SJWs or even liberals. They are too busy working and too smart and logical to be liberals. Feminist SJWs are usually liberal arts majors who can't count, and not much brain.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Travis says:
    @anon
    Testosterone is going down because of obesity.

    even adjusted for obesity the testosterone levels are down significantly from 30 years ago…another culprit is less men are doing manual labor and less men are working each year….back in the 1960s 95% of men worked, while today just 75% of men have jobs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Travis says:

    White births keep dropping in America

    Decade – – – Births………White Births
    1950-’59 – 40,100,000 – 35,100,000
    1960-’69 – 38,700,000 – 32,000,000
    1979-’79 – 33,400,000 – 25,700,000
    1980-’89 – 37,500,000 – 24,500,000
    1990-’99 – 39,900,000 – 23,000,000
    2000-’09 – 41,000,000 – 22,000,000
    2010-’19 – 39,000,000 – 20,000,000

    Europe, despite their lower fertility , still has more white babies born each decade

    over the last decade 20 million whites have been born in America and another 40 million whites were born in Europe while 170 million Chinese were born in China over the last decade….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ben Sampson
    interesting eh Travis! you gonna get swarmed and swamped!

    you better learn to love BBQ duck and braised dog with soy sauce and a sprinkle of sesame seed oil to bring up the flavor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @ChrisZ
    Achmed, I have a hypothesis that tattooing (at least as practiced today) is a form of self-mutilation. In earlier ages, various forms of mutilation--tearing out hair, clawing your skin, ripping clothes, e.g.--were associated with grief. Degrading your appearance, ruining your attractiveness either temporarily or permanently, was a way of expressing grief, dealing with it, or signaling to the public that you were under its sway. Maybe in this sense the tradition of wearing black for mourning was a low-grade form of self-mutilation, or a hedge against people resorting to more extreme forms of it. Similarly the strange dietary contagions that cycle through our culture--anorexia on the one hand, obesity on the other--may originate in some sort of grieving. Perhaps there's something biological about the connection between these kinds of physical distortions and deeplt negative emotional states.

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I've come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives--deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie--that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it's been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.

    Agreed. The subtext on a tattoo for a millennial is, Let me tell you about my parents’ divorce. And the subtext for ink on a Boomer female is, Let me tell you about MY divorce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Thanks Joseph. Appreciate that you managed to say in 30 words what it took me over 200 to say.

    (I had to look up the meaning of your moniker, and I'm going to start using it to describe my chronically barefoot son. Thanks again.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. In 1914 Europeans were 25% of world population. Today 5%. The only endangered minority in the world today is whites.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Travis
    well stated

    100 years ago 50% of Americans had Blue eyes, while today less than 20% of white Americans have Blue eyes, another indication of the vanishing white race..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Thomm says:
    @Rosie

    So, everybody wins … sort of!
     
    The White "feminists" whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :

    http://blonlee.com/ugly-feminists/

    Thanks for proving that White Trashionalism and radical feminism are almost identical ideologies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Sure, that makes sense,
    , @manorchurch
    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :And one(?) fucking moron who spent more than five minutes compiling that.

    Get a life, dude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. myself says:
    @Factorize
    Thank you for replying, myself! There has been a notable silence about the approaching IQ upgrade on unz. Clearly the entire apple cart will soon be upset: Time to prepare.

    I tend to think that at least initially this will be more about divergence than convergence at least over the medium term especially between developed and developing nations. Typical middle class Americans will have the necessary resources to genetically enhance their children. This will be the new industry of the 21st Century. America could truly be the leader on this. Yet, for most developing nations one would expect that they could lag. They have certainly lagged with rolling out genetic technology for single gene disorders. In some of the least developed nations, it is terrifying to imagine what could happen if IQ enhancement were introduced amidst extreme poverty and ongoing warfare. The potential for a child with 300 IQ to develop within such a context should concern everyone on this planet (especially considering the likely planetary scale range of any weapon system that such a child might be able to invent).

    Yes, the returns on investment would be so enormously large that there likely could be a wide range of interests that might step forward and offer to provide the financing. Amplifying human potential by 10 fold in every generation is simply too large of an opportunity to pass up.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out? My guess is that the time horizon of the Genetic Singularity has been reached. Total fertility collapse in developed nations should now be expected within 2 years. The TFR could move close to 0.0. I have already heard of a poster to a blog deciding to postpone childbearing until the IQ uplift occurs. This would seem to me the rational choice. Those children born immediately before the uplift might simply have no future. The entire generation might need to be placed onto public assistance for life. There is no possible way that a generation could reasonably compete with another generation that had a 1 SD IQ advantage.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?

    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, dwarfism, giantism etc. – mostly gone.

    After that, I don’t know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence – obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else – athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color – is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today – instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise “moment” of genetic uplift, I don’t think we’ll pin it down. It’s not a moment, it’s a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a “one and done” phenomenon. There won’t be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards – it will just keep going.

    And that’s just on the “meat” side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    And that’s just on the “meat” side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.


     

    I've become more dubious myself - have you looked up the redshift research done by Wuhan University(Wang, Li, Zhao & Dai)? It heavily supports the idea that there is some form of quantum involvement in what we consider as intelligence, which seems to be a reasonable explanation for how the brain appears to achieve its computations despite using vastly less energy than comparable mechanical versions, lending some credence to what was previously seen as kooky ideas by Sir Roger Penrose.

    There's probably something we can do to improve the brain mechanically - "mechanical telepathy" is an interesting candidate, but direct IQ enhancement seems like it might still be a ways off.

    , @manorchurch

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, dwarfism, giantism etc. – mostly gone.
     
    Question: from whence cometh these cures? Genetic medicines dispensed in huge volumes, at cost, throughout the population?

    It seems unlikely. Pharmas are in business to make money, and virtually all pharmacorps are headed by some version of a Shkreli. All pharmas are aided and abetted, vigorously, by Congress-critters.
    , @Factorize
    myself, thank you for replying! There has a great silence about this approaching disruption. I think that it is critically important to start the conversation NOW! This going to happen; some might not be overly happy about it, though we need to prepare for what will certainly be a dramatic social reorganization: the Genetic Singularity.

    I find it so incredibly frustrating that we are talking about a 10 year time horizon for the genetic architecture of the illnesses you mentioned to unlock. The rate of return that could be achieved by dedicating serious resources to these problems now would be large. For whatever reason the political process has yet to engage with this issue.

    I am surprised that a high GWAS was thought worthwhile. It is currently thought that much of architecture of IQ is based on commonly occurring SNPs.

    For the timeline question I am also interested in what your thoughts are on the topic of a pre-uplift fertility collapse. My rough feel is that embryo selection for IQ enhancement is now feasible. This might offer 10-20 IQ points. Those with substantial resources might achieve 50 points. Once this is widely understood in the community, a complete fertility would be a rational response. This could occur within 2 years. While you are surely correct that the technology would then continue to improve, parents-to-be might want to wait until the first stage of IQ optimization occurred (for example, finding all the commonly occurring SNPs). After total fertility collapse I suspect everyone would be highly focused on restoring fertility as quickly as possible. It would not be unexpected in such circumstances that the GWAS might move to a real time reporting system. I suspect that a profound sense of crisis would be present.

    There are so many other topics of interest related to the uplift that have went unexplored. For example, when will there be a medical school crisis? Doctors who are now studying to treat children with a range of medical issues might not have any long term employment prospects. How will we be able to entice people into medicine once it is clear that there will be no long term future for those who pursue this calling?

    The effects on society will also be profound. As it is now, all the positives naturally float up the social structure. Beauty, intelligence, wealth, ... all tend to co-segregate. What happens when the driving force IQ can truly be present anywhere? How much will the real estate of the wealthy then be worth?
    , @Travis
    CRSPIR technology will not be be widely used over the next 10 years....it would require women to have their eggs removed and then a round of in vitro fertilization with the altered DNA....not very practical and few Americans would pay $15,000 to have a baby with a slightly high IQ probability. They would be more likely to pay the extra $15,000 to get a taller, stronger , more athletic son with an IQ of 105 than have a shorter, weaker son with an IQ of 115.

    even today we do not know the causes of the majority of those diagnosed as Mentally Retarded...about 30% of cases of mental retardation are caused by hereditary factors....
    Usually the cause of mental retardation cannot be determined. Often the cause is due exposure to a virus or bacteria while in utero or caused by lack of oxygen to the babies brain during delivery...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Singh
    Cock carousel is death of civilizations||

    “It’s fascinating to watch these strange currents in human tastes and behavior. What do they tell us? ”

    John has no ideas?
    Come on…………..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Travis
    White births keep dropping in America

    Decade - - - Births.........White Births
    1950-'59 - 40,100,000 - 35,100,000
    1960-'69 - 38,700,000 - 32,000,000
    1979-'79 - 33,400,000 - 25,700,000
    1980-'89 - 37,500,000 - 24,500,000
    1990-'99 - 39,900,000 - 23,000,000
    2000-'09 - 41,000,000 - 22,000,000
    2010-'19 - 39,000,000 - 20,000,000

    Europe, despite their lower fertility , still has more white babies born each decade

    over the last decade 20 million whites have been born in America and another 40 million whites were born in Europe while 170 million Chinese were born in China over the last decade....

    interesting eh Travis! you gonna get swarmed and swamped!

    you better learn to love BBQ duck and braised dog with soy sauce and a sprinkle of sesame seed oil to bring up the flavor

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. “To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface”

    we are the Borg……….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Hildebrand
    Large part of decrease in TFP is caused by tempo effect that is change in timing of fertility. By measure of developed countries US has relatively low mean age of first birth and now it is converging. What is important, completed fertility for last known cohorts is above replacement:
    https://www.demogr.mpg.de/mediacms/2539_main_English_Speaking_EN.png

    It seems that your “last known cohort” terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom; and if that was barely above replacement, then the projections since then are totally out of whack. Just look at the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. Depopulation is obviously occurring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hildebrand
    "It seems that your “last known cohort” terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom"

    Do you know what is "cohort" mean? Dates in this figure is the years of birth of MOTHERS, not the years of birth of children. The last known cohort is not 1962 but 1975 who almost complete their reproductive career very recently.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. ChrisZ says:
    @Joseph the Discalced
    Agreed. The subtext on a tattoo for a millennial is, Let me tell you about my parents' divorce. And the subtext for ink on a Boomer female is, Let me tell you about MY divorce.

    Thanks Joseph. Appreciate that you managed to say in 30 words what it took me over 200 to say.

    (I had to look up the meaning of your moniker, and I’m going to start using it to describe my chronically barefoot son. Thanks again.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Any idea how the white birthrate in the UK is doing in 2017? And is that figure White British, or just European? Anything below 80% White British is unacceptable, though obviously any improvement is extremely welcome.

    The Brits are aided by the Czech and polish immigrants who fuck like rabbits in better economic conditions. Even in czechia now the TFR is 1.67 and improving. Poland is around 1.45 but is looking to increase again this year.

    Is merely two or three children “f—-ing like rabbits”? Or are the Slavs in the uk actually having big families?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Thomm

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.
     
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :

    http://blonlee.com/ugly-feminists/

    Thanks for proving that White Trashionalism and radical feminism are almost identical ideologies.

    Sure, that makes sense,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. The young adults of today, contrariwise, with their buff bodies, perfect dentition, and daily showers, with sex segregation actually outlawed almost everywhere

    The Beautiful Ones of the New HumanRat Utopia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. @John Bushcroft
    >Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were “freed” during the Civil Rights era.

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.

    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft

    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.

     

    Doesn't work that way. These are different generations we are talking about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @TheJester
    Matches made in Heaven ...?

    Having known a number of Hispanic boys and their families over the past decade, I noticed that the high school boys seemed to have had the "hots" for white girls, including my daughter.

    Let me posture a reason: Just as in the Caribbean among blacks, there is pressure in the Hispanic mestizo communities to "white" the family to improve their social and economic status, something denied them in the strict caste-based cultures of Latin America. Otherwise, how can one explain Hispanic males with an obvious Amerindian heritage who have never dated a Hispanic female and have no intention of ever doing so?

    I have also known a number of white males who were very interested in Hispanic females. The latter tend to be warm, feminine, and very interested in family formation with white males ... perhaps their version of "whiting" the family. Hispanic females are a breath of fresh air when compared to white feminists who seem predisposed to be hostile toward anything and everything white and male.

    Not to be left behind, the white feminists are also finding their place ... sort of. Flying in the face of the classic female practice of hypergamy, they are showing a new and heightened interest in black males. It now seems de rigueur for white professional women to sport mulatto children in the restaurants and shopping malls. This is "virtue signaling" of the first order. Indeed, I'm assuming that they feel empowered and reassured to be able to find someone with whom to share stories about white male oppression and their common victimhood.

    So, everybody wins ... sort of!

    Hispanic girls in the USA tend to be warm and feminine? Yeesh. Maybe outside Los Angeles area. Maybe not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester
    Try Northern Virginia. We know quite a few Hispanic females. In Northern Virginia, it's almost impossible not to since immigrants gravitate to high-paying urban areas ... and we live in the richest county in the United States. My sample includes numerous Hispanic friends and many young Hispanic girls who were in our daughter's social group in high school and junior college (our daughter has since married and moved away).

    Hence, I stand by my claim ... "warm and feminine".

    Aside: Note iSteve's satirical post about the NYT's claim about immigrants allegedly repopulating America's small towns. I stand with iSteve ... nonsense! Loudoun and surrounding urban counties are a virtual "United Nations". If you want to educate your children about the world and its diversity, don't go on a world tour, send your children to a local public school ... or wander through a local Costco.

    We have to drive deep into Pennsylvania to find a traditional American town that reminds us of where we grew up. Surprise! Marginal wealth ... few blacks ... few Hispanics ... no Hindi ... no Chinese ... no BMWs ... and young people don't have to speak Spanish to work in the local fast food restaurants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Factorize
    Thank you for replying, myself! There has been a notable silence about the approaching IQ upgrade on unz. Clearly the entire apple cart will soon be upset: Time to prepare.

    I tend to think that at least initially this will be more about divergence than convergence at least over the medium term especially between developed and developing nations. Typical middle class Americans will have the necessary resources to genetically enhance their children. This will be the new industry of the 21st Century. America could truly be the leader on this. Yet, for most developing nations one would expect that they could lag. They have certainly lagged with rolling out genetic technology for single gene disorders. In some of the least developed nations, it is terrifying to imagine what could happen if IQ enhancement were introduced amidst extreme poverty and ongoing warfare. The potential for a child with 300 IQ to develop within such a context should concern everyone on this planet (especially considering the likely planetary scale range of any weapon system that such a child might be able to invent).

    Yes, the returns on investment would be so enormously large that there likely could be a wide range of interests that might step forward and offer to provide the financing. Amplifying human potential by 10 fold in every generation is simply too large of an opportunity to pass up.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out? My guess is that the time horizon of the Genetic Singularity has been reached. Total fertility collapse in developed nations should now be expected within 2 years. The TFR could move close to 0.0. I have already heard of a poster to a blog deciding to postpone childbearing until the IQ uplift occurs. This would seem to me the rational choice. Those children born immediately before the uplift might simply have no future. The entire generation might need to be placed onto public assistance for life. There is no possible way that a generation could reasonably compete with another generation that had a 1 SD IQ advantage.

    Typical middle-class Americans are in debt and have a negative net worth excluding their homes. Many, many millions have a negative net worth overall because they don’t own a home or are underwater on their home.

    There is no reason to think that they will be able to afford genetic engineering. They will be more worried about finding a safe place to sleep, getting enough food, power outages and brownouts (coming in LA and coming to the rest of you thereafter), and avoiding violence at the hands of the even poorer, angry, poorly assimilated, nonwhite MAJORITY.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    America has this enormous amount of wealth. It is the one economy that the entire world wants to market to. Often when people allude to their supposed poverty it is quickly revealed that this is within the context of a 100k+ family income. My guess is that IQ uplift will simply displace other priorities. It is not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the next speculative bubble will be related to IQ enhancement. People will rationally choose to live in tents and have children with 150 IQ than live in mansions with 115 IQ children. Such a speculative frenzy at least will produce a lasting and substantial improvement in our community.

    Considering how truly massive such rates of return will be there will probably be a wide range of financial institutions and others that will be more than willing to provide the financing for such enhancement. The recent housing crisis in the US has lead many to question the moral priorities of those in the financial services industry. Providing the financing for the most rapid IQ enhancement in the history of humanity could help change public opinion about the industry. Increasing IQ will not be an empty exercise in creating a bubble without creating any actual wealth. In the modern world intelligence is the driving factor of wealth generation. Going directly to the fountain of wealth creation will have a truly extreme effect on the world of our future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    A big problem is that people my age buy into the "hookup culture" meme. In theory it might sound fun and liberating - but in reality it doesn't exist. Chasing this idea leads to frustration, degeneracy and ultimately dissatisfaction.

    Don't get me wrong, a few guys can pull it off. But if you're not in the 1% of guys, you're not getting laid very often from hookup strategies. If you get any, it's a massive amount of time and effort for 10 minutes of weak sex.

    As I discovered through experience, having a committed relationship gets you way, way, way more sex (assuming you're not waiting until marriage). It gives both partners time to explore, love, and discover what works for them. Lots of sex leads to a higher sex drive, and more masculinity and vitality. Once you have deep sex enough times, you will inevitably start to think about reproduction.

    Millenials have little sex because few are in relationships, as they have been sold a false bill of goods. Boomers had more relationships = more sex and eventually more children. Hookup culture and feminism are the problem. Women and men are miserable but don't realize it.

    Excellent points, sir.

    And what exactly are the one percent of hookup guys even achieving? None of it perpetuates their genes, their family name and traditions, their culture and mores, to the new next generation. (Unless they’re African-like scum who knock women up and abandon them, which leads to their next generation ending up disproportionately incarcerated, prematurely dead, drug-addicted, homosexual, and all the other charming things that happen so often to kids with no steady dad around.)

    My parents and their friends didn’t screw like animals or “play the field” for a lot of years before marrying and settling down. And I hardly think their generation is less manly or less normal than the current ones..

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Hooking up with somebody satisfies the immediate desire for sex. It gives men a feeling of masculinity and being "alpha".

    It does not, however produce white children and women will immediately rush to the abortion clinic if they do get pregnant.

    Ironically, men don't have to be in a rush to reproduce. Men can also be much happier as bachelor's their whole lives. Women are the ones spurning men for their careers and cats, and also ending up stressed and miserable.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude nor am I a misogynist. I don't see anything wrong with sex, or even "playing the field", as you put it, for a time. The problem is that these millenials are 35 and still drinking like fish and still trying to stick their increasingly limp dicks into increasingly worn vaginas.

    At a certain point it's time to grow up and realize that hookup culture doesn't lead anywhere, that's my point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Renoman
    Raising Children is expensive vexing thankless expensive work. The World needs far less people as we don't have enough resources to support our current population. There are no jobs as automation has eliminated them, low birth rate -Perfect! It may be tough for a while not having sufficient money to pay pensions but hey, simple solution -kill the rich and take their money, they stole it all from us anyway so what's the problem? Diversity breeds crowding and War, fuck that shit, leave the immigration off the table and just make do with less for a while, it will straighten itself out soon enough.

    Yes, the planet doesn’t have enough fresh water, arable land, open space, clean air, etc., for this huge population with an industrial lifestyle and personal combustion vehicles.

    But does the world become better or even worse if the generally more intelligent, more productive people have zero to two children and the generally less intelligent, less productive have many children?

    We don’t simply “need fewer people.” We need fewer people bred from most of the world’s countries and peoples, and more from normal European, Russian, and Japanese people. No violence needed to accomplish this, just stop sending food and medicine and other aid to Africa and India — and to their kinsmen here in our countries — and focus all resources on our own peoples instead.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Renoman
    Raising Children is expensive vexing thankless expensive work. The World needs far less people as we don't have enough resources to support our current population. There are no jobs as automation has eliminated them, low birth rate -Perfect! It may be tough for a while not having sufficient money to pay pensions but hey, simple solution -kill the rich and take their money, they stole it all from us anyway so what's the problem? Diversity breeds crowding and War, fuck that shit, leave the immigration off the table and just make do with less for a while, it will straighten itself out soon enough.

    Killing the super-rich and taking their property? The proceeds won’t last long with such a large and increasing number of poor and struggling to take care of.

    And your definition of rich will differ a lot from the definition favored by truly poor people, many of whom hate and resent you for racial, cultural, and economic reasons. You’ll find that some of US here would be considered rich, and you won’t have time to explain to the murderous looting mob (or the heavily armed and soulless government thugs who come for your property) that you are really middle-class.

    How about merely confiscating the houses, vehicles, and excess wealth of the high-income earners in Hollywood “industry” and in the finance “sector.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Cicerone
    I try to put more stuff on twitter in the future, I promise! ;)

    I try to put more stuff on twitter in the future, I promise! ;)

    Oh, good, you are such a humanist. We must all emulate your ideals! Let’s put everything we can think of on Twitter, and gush effusively. We will save this country yet! We will never run out of new emojis!

    Sardonicisms aside, why does no one see the widespread sickness — pathological social dysfunction in the sense of what “social” really means — in millions of no-status individuals devotedly “following” celebrity individuals? It is a form of mass conversion from the American ideal of the ruggedly independent individual, to cotillions of touchy-feely-weepy cuddlers-with-friends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @John Bushcroft

    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished.
     
    Japan doesn't have minimal immigration anymore (it's ratcheting up out of necessity) but they have zero chance of replacing their peak population on their own after 50 years of fertility decline. Which also means they have no opportunity to solve their debt crisis or their other problems such as rural decay without large scale immigration. There's no realistic way to invision a future world where males have restored patriarchal dominance and forced women to breed the necessary amount of children to breathe life back in to first world countries, short of a total civilization collapse, which would cause untold numbers of deaths due to nuclear power plants going prompt crtical everywhere, food shortages, etc.

    Japan is still crowded with expensive square foot housing costs, so a few more decades of negative population growth will improve the quality of life for them. There is no problem with their debt overhang since they own 100% of their debt on a net basis, and own much US debt too due to trade-surplus-linked saving. There is no foreign-owned-debt overhang. They need to make some economic adjustments to deal with their ageing demographic profile, but that involves simple Economics 101 market-based adjustments. Immigration on the other hand would be disastrous for them and their quality of life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Bushcroft
    Economics 101 can't defy the laws of energy. If there is no one around to pay the debts of the previous generations, they don't get paid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Thomm

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.
     
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :

    http://blonlee.com/ugly-feminists/

    Thanks for proving that White Trashionalism and radical feminism are almost identical ideologies.

    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :And one(?) fucking moron who spent more than five minutes compiling that.

    Get a life, dude.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people's awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @myself

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?
     
    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, dwarfism, giantism etc. - mostly gone.

    After that, I don't know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence - obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else - athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color - is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today - instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise "moment" of genetic uplift, I don't think we'll pin it down. It's not a moment, it's a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a "one and done" phenomenon. There won't be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards - it will just keep going.

    And that's just on the "meat" side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    And that’s just on the “meat” side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    I’ve become more dubious myself – have you looked up the redshift research done by Wuhan University(Wang, Li, Zhao & Dai)? It heavily supports the idea that there is some form of quantum involvement in what we consider as intelligence, which seems to be a reasonable explanation for how the brain appears to achieve its computations despite using vastly less energy than comparable mechanical versions, lending some credence to what was previously seen as kooky ideas by Sir Roger Penrose.

    There’s probably something we can do to improve the brain mechanically – “mechanical telepathy” is an interesting candidate, but direct IQ enhancement seems like it might still be a ways off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @myself

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?
     
    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, dwarfism, giantism etc. - mostly gone.

    After that, I don't know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence - obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else - athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color - is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today - instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise "moment" of genetic uplift, I don't think we'll pin it down. It's not a moment, it's a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a "one and done" phenomenon. There won't be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards - it will just keep going.

    And that's just on the "meat" side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, dwarfism, giantism etc. – mostly gone.

    Question: from whence cometh these cures? Genetic medicines dispensed in huge volumes, at cost, throughout the population?

    It seems unlikely. Pharmas are in business to make money, and virtually all pharmacorps are headed by some version of a Shkreli. All pharmas are aided and abetted, vigorously, by Congress-critters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The commentator myself lives in China; he's probably thinking of subsidized neonatal care there. It would be logical from a purely financial viewpoint as well and probably justifiable elsewhere since essentially its the argument for preventative care(less) over remedial care(more).
    , @Lucas McCrudy
    Through the genetic screening of embryos... but those embryos have to be conceived through IVF which (currently) costs $10k+ per cycle and presently only a dozen or so eggs can be harvested from a women's ovaries at a time using invasive and painful extraction methods. But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with "bad" genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @manorchurch

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, dwarfism, giantism etc. – mostly gone.
     
    Question: from whence cometh these cures? Genetic medicines dispensed in huge volumes, at cost, throughout the population?

    It seems unlikely. Pharmas are in business to make money, and virtually all pharmacorps are headed by some version of a Shkreli. All pharmas are aided and abetted, vigorously, by Congress-critters.

    The commentator myself lives in China; he’s probably thinking of subsidized neonatal care there. It would be logical from a purely financial viewpoint as well and probably justifiable elsewhere since essentially its the argument for preventative care(less) over remedial care(more).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. who said depopulation is occurring?

    it most surely is taking place. what else to expect with a minority capitalist population driving global society..a minority population that is contiguous with capitalism..owns capitalism, is capitalism.. but also with a religious world view/ideology that is entirely supremacist and 110% intolerant of the lives of others…faced with the development of internal capitalist contradictions that yields to no other solution relative to their interest but global depopulation, and genetically engineering to ensure their total control, any rump remainder population they think they need to maintain

    the future of humanity will be shaped, is being shaped, by the resolution of, or the evolution of capitalism..the working out of the basic capitalist contradiction, between those who exploit, and the exploited.

    it seems quite simple and straightforward to me:

    what are the capitalists going to do with the people in job-eating advanced technological times?

    can advanced technology be held back to ensure ‘full’ employment to maintain some sort of balance between owner and worker?
    I dont think so. positive human evolution and humanely purposed advancing technology go hand in hand..hold back one hold back the other!

    I mean it goes on and on…Capitalism is a no win situation for humanity. it is either capitalism evolves into some kind of cooperative democracy in which the enhancement and on-going development of society becomes the focus of human activity and purpose..or the minority interest wins and dominates… in which case humanity is screwed.

    if the capitalist religious minority wins out, human society with the current technological level and its perpetual advancement..they turn human society, the human future, into an unimaginably grotesque monster mash, a monumental, limitless hell no dystopian I have seen yet has come close too, relative to my own imaginings of how this will be..not 1984, Brave New World, Lord of the Rings etc. but far worse

    the history of north east Africa… what they call the middle east… for 70 relentless years and on-going, gives us only a small idea of what is to come..of the relentless focused drive of the religious capitalists. I mean the horrific human future taking shape is nothing for the relentless collective mentality that gave us, and keeps giving.. Disney, talking cars, mouses, turtles etc… talking burning-bushes, a blonde resurrected Jesus, killed by his own father in the human interest pheeew!: That gave us Hollywood, constant and extraordinarily inventive if cruel and mass murderous global political games, and a whole lot more of that quality… for a thousand years and counting

    this is simply what is involved in the population issue..indeed in all human issues. it is either we end human exploitation by humans and build a real social democracy, focused on its own development, or be collectively exploited to the hilt: which would drive humanity to extinction in horrific, dystopian shape.

    the Borg aint nutten to what we face as a species…by our own hand

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. Anon[349] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Maciano
    John,

    TFRs are misleading. Below replacement whites =/= not whites dying out per se. Some white groups are dying out, like liberals; conservatives tend to remain above replacement. This is probably a good thing, long term. Liberals are not tribal enough for modernity to survive as a group. They'll drag us down.

    Group TFRs also have different tempo because of age at first birth. Religious people have 4 generations in 100 years, secular people only 3.

    Also, group TFRs can accelerate, fast and suddenly, when all the low TFR dead weight is gone. High fertility will return, it is inevitable; these are the only people who will survive.

    So many smart commenters here, and you even seem like one but then you drop this retarded idea that liberals by default produce liberal children (and viceversa w conservatives). Thats not how DNA works That’s not even how nurture works, m oron, what is this the breitfart comment section?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maciano
    Well, you're partly right. I was careless, since I wrote the response on my phone.

    Political attitudes are moderately heritable, and lefties get fewer children on average. Both statements are factually true.

    This isn't to say that lefties can't convert conservatives to leftism. It simply means that lefties tend to die off, while conservatives tend to leave more children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Factorize says:
    @myself

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?
     
    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, dwarfism, giantism etc. - mostly gone.

    After that, I don't know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence - obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else - athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color - is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today - instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise "moment" of genetic uplift, I don't think we'll pin it down. It's not a moment, it's a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a "one and done" phenomenon. There won't be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards - it will just keep going.

    And that's just on the "meat" side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    myself, thank you for replying! There has a great silence about this approaching disruption. I think that it is critically important to start the conversation NOW! This going to happen; some might not be overly happy about it, though we need to prepare for what will certainly be a dramatic social reorganization: the Genetic Singularity.

    I find it so incredibly frustrating that we are talking about a 10 year time horizon for the genetic architecture of the illnesses you mentioned to unlock. The rate of return that could be achieved by dedicating serious resources to these problems now would be large. For whatever reason the political process has yet to engage with this issue.

    I am surprised that a high GWAS was thought worthwhile. It is currently thought that much of architecture of IQ is based on commonly occurring SNPs.

    For the timeline question I am also interested in what your thoughts are on the topic of a pre-uplift fertility collapse. My rough feel is that embryo selection for IQ enhancement is now feasible. This might offer 10-20 IQ points. Those with substantial resources might achieve 50 points. Once this is widely understood in the community, a complete fertility would be a rational response. This could occur within 2 years. While you are surely correct that the technology would then continue to improve, parents-to-be might want to wait until the first stage of IQ optimization occurred (for example, finding all the commonly occurring SNPs). After total fertility collapse I suspect everyone would be highly focused on restoring fertility as quickly as possible. It would not be unexpected in such circumstances that the GWAS might move to a real time reporting system. I suspect that a profound sense of crisis would be present.

    There are so many other topics of interest related to the uplift that have went unexplored. For example, when will there be a medical school crisis? Doctors who are now studying to treat children with a range of medical issues might not have any long term employment prospects. How will we be able to entice people into medicine once it is clear that there will be no long term future for those who pursue this calling?

    The effects on society will also be profound. As it is now, all the positives naturally float up the social structure. Beauty, intelligence, wealth, … all tend to co-segregate. What happens when the driving force IQ can truly be present anywhere? How much will the real estate of the wealthy then be worth?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anon[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @manorchurch
    65 pretty girls who were ruined by feminism :And one(?) fucking moron who spent more than five minutes compiling that.

    Get a life, dude.

    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people’s awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people’s awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.
     
    Understood. Also understood is your failure to perceive "feminism" -- as you choose to term it -- as simply another mechanism of social change produced by a long-term and irrevocable transition from an agrarian, tribal society to an industrialized factional society.

    All I can say, frankly, is "Pay attention!" You are 20 years behind the curve.
    , @Thomm
    Cuckservatives like Manorchurch are pretty-much just water-carriers for 'feminism'. Part of it is due to his incel status.

    He has no awareness of how feminist laws have destroyed families, separated fathers from children, and sent innocent men to jail and even suicide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. TheJester says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Hispanic girls in the USA tend to be warm and feminine? Yeesh. Maybe outside Los Angeles area. Maybe not.

    Try Northern Virginia. We know quite a few Hispanic females. In Northern Virginia, it’s almost impossible not to since immigrants gravitate to high-paying urban areas … and we live in the richest county in the United States. My sample includes numerous Hispanic friends and many young Hispanic girls who were in our daughter’s social group in high school and junior college (our daughter has since married and moved away).

    Hence, I stand by my claim … “warm and feminine”.

    Aside: Note iSteve’s satirical post about the NYT’s claim about immigrants allegedly repopulating America’s small towns. I stand with iSteve … nonsense! Loudoun and surrounding urban counties are a virtual “United Nations”. If you want to educate your children about the world and its diversity, don’t go on a world tour, send your children to a local public school … or wander through a local Costco.

    We have to drive deep into Pennsylvania to find a traditional American town that reminds us of where we grew up. Surprise! Marginal wealth … few blacks … few Hispanics … no Hindi … no Chinese … no BMWs … and young people don’t have to speak Spanish to work in the local fast food restaurants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Hence, I stand by my claim … “warm and feminine”.
     
    I now understand what Thomm means when he says "White trashionalism" is identical with feminism.

    The wandering capitalist figures he might as well replace White workers with more pliant, grateful, and submissive brown workers. White nationalists object.

    Jester figures White men might as well replace White women with brown ones, and for precisely the same reason. Feminists object.

    I have been trying to tell alt-Right men that "feminists" are potential allies while MGTOW are a menace. Help sometimes comes from unexpected places.

    Thanks, Jester & Thomm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Factorize says:

    myself, I am not sure whether you wish to confirm or deny the claim of your Chinese residency, though this would offer a very useful insight if in fact you were located there. From what I have read, China appears to have unequivocally endorsed the concept of genetic enhancement. In Western nations, it is no longer a question whether can IQ embryo selection can be done, but should it. Currently, the prevailing opinion, socially and probably legally is that it should not be.

    Such a stance does not seem to have any medium term plausibility. Once it is clear that IQ enhancement has occurred anywhere in the world, rejecting such enhancement would no longer be possible over even the short term. The rapid scramble to the airport as entire nations depopulated could not continue for much more than a few days. It is all too clear that IQ enhancement along with selecting against a range of illnesses would create a dramatically different world. Perhaps the UN will need to be sent in to those nations that refuse to join the uplift and continue to suffer all the consequences that are plainly reported in our daily newscasts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. Anonymous[107] • Disclaimer says:

    he’s probably thinking of subsidized neonatal care there. It would be logical from a purely financial viewpoint as well and probably justifiable elsewhere since essentially its the argument for preventative care(less) over remedial care(more).

    Ah, noted. Still, a process entailing generation-long treatment at the genetic level, per each affliction selected for elimination, and only in China, as I suspect western pharmaceutical companies would fight communitarian health efforts tooth-and-nail throughout the USA and Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  142. @manorchurch

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer’s, parkinson’s, dwarfism, giantism etc. – mostly gone.
     
    Question: from whence cometh these cures? Genetic medicines dispensed in huge volumes, at cost, throughout the population?

    It seems unlikely. Pharmas are in business to make money, and virtually all pharmacorps are headed by some version of a Shkreli. All pharmas are aided and abetted, vigorously, by Congress-critters.

    Through the genetic screening of embryos… but those embryos have to be conceived through IVF which (currently) costs $10k+ per cycle and presently only a dozen or so eggs can be harvested from a women’s ovaries at a time using invasive and painful extraction methods. But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with “bad” genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with “bad” genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.
     
    I am willing to bet real money that won't happen within an average lifetime -- call it 70 years. Too many people, too many conflicts, too few resources.
    , @Factorize
    $10k for possibly 10 IQ points offers extraordinary value! If 1 IQ point equals $1,000 in income, then the cost of the enhancement would be rewarded in the first year of earning. People might feel it is no longer worthwhile to save for their children's education, only their IQ enhancement. It is not clear whether the vast quantities of resources that are devoted to education actually increase psychometric G. That is after many hundreds of billions of dollars spent and several decades trying.

    Of course we are only talking about a primitive technology that has been in use for nearly half a century. For CRISPR to move through clinical trials it could take decades and decades. Embryo selection is a standard procedure used in reproductive clinics. When sperm or egg selection is developed than all bets are off. If one could develop a process that selected the best sperm and egg among 100 million, the IQ enhancement would be dramatically magnified. Perhaps you are now moving toward a 100 IQ increase in the first generation. There would be no associated moral squeamish involved in gamete selection as it would not be reasonable to suggest that gametes are in some way alive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Anonymous Jew
    re "point of no return":
    Except if the country is like Japan et al and only has minimal immigration. Assuming we continue on our current path, Japan will still have a chance over the next several decades, while many Western countries will be finished. A population decline, like Japan is experiencing, is manageable and even reversible on a long enough timeline. Going from 90% White with a 10% Black underclass to 50% White with a 35% Brown/Black underclass is irreversible. In the latter situation, the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    …the best we can hope for is semi-peaceful separation into separate nations. Realistically, we just become a colder version of Brazil.

    We already are a colder version of Brazil, where a brown/white divide characterizes urban environments on, or close to, the sea coast. For that matter, factions in southern Brazil are agitating for separating Parana, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul into a separate country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Anon
    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people's awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.

    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people’s awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.

    Understood. Also understood is your failure to perceive “feminism” — as you choose to term it — as simply another mechanism of social change produced by a long-term and irrevocable transition from an agrarian, tribal society to an industrialized factional society.

    All I can say, frankly, is “Pay attention!” You are 20 years behind the curve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.

    You seem to have no idea how many 'feminist' laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Intelligent Dasein
    It seems that your "last known cohort" terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom; and if that was barely above replacement, then the projections since then are totally out of whack. Just look at the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. Depopulation is obviously occurring.

    “It seems that your “last known cohort” terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom”

    Do you know what is “cohort” mean? Dates in this figure is the years of birth of MOTHERS, not the years of birth of children. The last known cohort is not 1962 but 1975 who almost complete their reproductive career very recently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    No kidding. That's exactly what I meant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Lucas McCrudy
    Through the genetic screening of embryos... but those embryos have to be conceived through IVF which (currently) costs $10k+ per cycle and presently only a dozen or so eggs can be harvested from a women's ovaries at a time using invasive and painful extraction methods. But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with "bad" genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.

    But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with “bad” genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.

    I am willing to bet real money that won’t happen within an average lifetime — call it 70 years. Too many people, too many conflicts, too few resources.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I do not think many people are aware of where the research is right now. Nature Genetics has a forthcoming article in which they identify 37 SD of Educational Attainment. To put in this into some
    context 37 SD of IQ is 500 points. This means that 10 points of IQ enhancement based on embryo selection should at this time be understood as being feasible at reasonable expense with existing technology. IQ uplift has now arrived. There are some specific identifiable people within the community in which offering them publicly financed IQ enhancement technology for their future children would offer a compelling investment. It soon might be realized that we can longer afford not to make this investment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Dante says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Any idea how the white birthrate in the UK is doing in 2017? And is that figure White British, or just European? Anything below 80% White British is unacceptable, though obviously any improvement is extremely welcome.

    The Brits are aided by the Czech and polish immigrants who fuck like rabbits in better economic conditions. Even in czechia now the TFR is 1.67 and improving. Poland is around 1.45 but is looking to increase again this year.

    Hi there I have birth stats for 2016 in England and Wales for you, 71.8% were White births or around half a Million and while I don’t have race based stats for Northern Ireland and Scotland we can assume the vast majority of births in both nations are still to Whites especially in Northen Ireland where Natural population growth is the main driver of growth so with 24 thousand births and 54 Thousand in Scotland I would estimate around 75% of all births are White ( British and European ). If I find out 2017 I’ll post. Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @5371
    The breakdown of births by race (TFR will come later) is there at the bottom of page 2 and in table 2 of the 2017 births report, and it shows how misleading is the "minorities hit hardest" spin.

    High share of minority births is due to the positive demographic momentum: much larger share of Hispanic and Black population is consist of persons of reproductive age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Thomm says:
    @Anon
    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people's awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.

    Cuckservatives like Manorchurch are pretty-much just water-carriers for ‘feminism’. Part of it is due to his incel status.

    He has no awareness of how feminist laws have destroyed families, separated fathers from children, and sent innocent men to jail and even suicide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Thomm says:
    @manorchurch

    What is so threatening to you about it? I think it helps raise people’s awareness on the destruction caused by feminism looking at individual cases.
     
    Understood. Also understood is your failure to perceive "feminism" -- as you choose to term it -- as simply another mechanism of social change produced by a long-term and irrevocable transition from an agrarian, tribal society to an industrialized factional society.

    All I can say, frankly, is "Pay attention!" You are 20 years behind the curve.

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.
     
    But not ignorant of the language and the proper use thereof, dick. I am not a "cuckservative", asshole, because I am not a conservative, make no claim to conservative viewpoints, and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the "conservative" label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.
     
    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don't preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.
     
    Got it, you hate women. How unusual -- never happens in your pack of limp-dick fools.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Peter Johnson
    Japan is still crowded with expensive square foot housing costs, so a few more decades of negative population growth will improve the quality of life for them. There is no problem with their debt overhang since they own 100% of their debt on a net basis, and own much US debt too due to trade-surplus-linked saving. There is no foreign-owned-debt overhang. They need to make some economic adjustments to deal with their ageing demographic profile, but that involves simple Economics 101 market-based adjustments. Immigration on the other hand would be disastrous for them and their quality of life.

    Economics 101 can’t defy the laws of energy. If there is no one around to pay the debts of the previous generations, they don’t get paid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    Maybe it is Economics 102. Suppose you have an interest-earning savings account and an interest-requiring mortgage, and no outside income. The savings account can pay the mortgage account so the credits and debits just cancel. In terms of its government debt, Japan Inc looks like that. Actually their savings account is larger, due to substantial foreign debt holdings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @John Bushcroft
    And this shows precisely why "replacement fertility" is a sham. It is masked by the bigger problem of declining white population size. The number of white people of childbearing age today will never be able to make up for the dieoff of baby boomers, even if they were birthing 5 children per woman.

    Hence we can never actually replace the white population. "Replacement ferility" is an impossiblity. We have taken an irreversible hit from 50 years of white female chidlessness. There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again. It seems every country that passes the 1.80 children per woman milestone crosses a "point of no return" and never recovers.

    There is no reason to believe fertility will even rise above 2 children per woman ever again.

    No, there is reason to believe in it. USA have a significant ultra-religious population of Haredi Jews and Old-Order Anabaptists. Although they still constitute a small proportion of an American population, they have very high fertility rate. If they will not began demographic transition (which is unlikely but not impossible — see Hutterites who have accepted contraception and whose fertility already declined from 10 children to under 5), since the beginning of 22nd century their population will be large enough to influence fertility rate in whole country.

    And, as I already wrote, completed fertility of last known cohorts is above replacement. There is also TEMPO-ADJUSTED total fertility rate for US (https://www.humanfertility.org/cgi-bin/country.php?country=USA&tab=si):

    [MORE]

    1980 1.997
    1981 2.006
    1982 1.995
    1983 1.988
    1984 1.960
    1985 1.969
    1986 1.994
    1987 1.989
    1988 1.952
    1989 2.000
    1990 2.038
    1991 2.067
    1992 2.183
    1993 2.225
    1994 2.254
    1995 2.220
    1996 2.183
    1997 2.145
    1998 2.190
    1999 2.262
    2000 2.334
    2001 2.328
    2002 2.387
    2003 2.309
    2004 2.148
    2005 2.065
    2006 2.119
    2007 2.242
    2008 2.295
    2009 2.355
    2010 2.333
    2011 2.207
    2012 2.171
    2013 2.194
    2014 2.161

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Travis says:
    @Factorize
    Thank you for replying, myself! There has been a notable silence about the approaching IQ upgrade on unz. Clearly the entire apple cart will soon be upset: Time to prepare.

    I tend to think that at least initially this will be more about divergence than convergence at least over the medium term especially between developed and developing nations. Typical middle class Americans will have the necessary resources to genetically enhance their children. This will be the new industry of the 21st Century. America could truly be the leader on this. Yet, for most developing nations one would expect that they could lag. They have certainly lagged with rolling out genetic technology for single gene disorders. In some of the least developed nations, it is terrifying to imagine what could happen if IQ enhancement were introduced amidst extreme poverty and ongoing warfare. The potential for a child with 300 IQ to develop within such a context should concern everyone on this planet (especially considering the likely planetary scale range of any weapon system that such a child might be able to invent).

    Yes, the returns on investment would be so enormously large that there likely could be a wide range of interests that might step forward and offer to provide the financing. Amplifying human potential by 10 fold in every generation is simply too large of an opportunity to pass up.

    What is your timeline on this rolling out? My guess is that the time horizon of the Genetic Singularity has been reached. Total fertility collapse in developed nations should now be expected within 2 years. The TFR could move close to 0.0. I have already heard of a poster to a blog deciding to postpone childbearing until the IQ uplift occurs. This would seem to me the rational choice. Those children born immediately before the uplift might simply have no future. The entire generation might need to be placed onto public assistance for life. There is no possible way that a generation could reasonably compete with another generation that had a 1 SD IQ advantage.

    we are not close to upgrading the IQ of our offspring…first we will expand embryo selection (currently embryo selection is utilized to avoid some genetic diseases and select the sex of a child). Wealthy Parents will have the ability to select the best embryo of the dozens they create in vitro…but even if such methods of in vitro fertilization were less costly and available to the poor, most Americans would select for Height, eye color and athletic ability over an embryo with a slightly higher IQ but having the wrong eye color.

    The typical parent with an IQ of 100 does not want children with an IQ greater than 110. They certainly will not pay thousands of dollars to gain 10 IQ points. They will continue to procreate the natural way and use the thousands of dollars they saved to go to Disneyland…but if they were able to select a child for traits such as height and beauty they would mortgage their home to get a pretty daughter or an athletic son.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I am not sure whether I agree with the idea that IQ uplift is now on the distant horizon. It is not entirely clear to me whether such enhancement is already underway in China. Merely selecting 1 in 10 embryos gives you up to a 15 point enhancement. No current population has an IQ greater than 1 SD above Greenwich mean. It should be clear to all how much of a difference 1 SD can have on society. America is fractured by just such an amount. It might at some be realized that we can longer afford not to make this investment in those within the 20% of most disadvantaged people in the community.

    Even doing a simple first round of genetically selecting against all diseases would have an overwhelming effect on our society. Such selection would certainly create essentially a new human species. The developing world might not be able to achieve a similar upgrade for many decades into the future.

    One thing that should be remembered is that the meaning of 100 IQ will shift through time. As you noted that people typically do want their children to be considered normal above all else. Having a child with mal-adaptively discordant IQ likely would not be understood to be of great benefit. Yet, normal will now shift through time. There will be a great interest in remaining normal as the uplift occurs. It can be reasonably predicted that in the not too distant future children with only IQs of 200 will be placed in classes analogous to those reserved today for those with developmental disabilities and people will feel great anguish related to the expected life trajectories that such children would face.

    I am not sure whether beauty or athleticism would work in the same way in the future. Up till now all the positives in the community wound up at the same place. You know that you have hit the favored class of people when you have colocated the intelligence, wealth, beauty, health etc. All the good is magnetically drawn to one central location. IQ uplift will override all of this. For me, all of my family genetic health concerns could probably be selected out after a generation or two. I am not sure whether I would then find any great advantage in say continuing to select against depression risk, or autistic risk etc. . Once achieving the standard level deemed normal for happiness within my community I am not sure what great advantage might be derived for selecting yet more happiness etc . However, with intelligence, one could well imagine that people will pursue uplift until they had achieved close to an optimal IQ. That might be in the range of hundreds of points.
    People with IQs in that range would have incomes of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @RadicalCenter
    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.

    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.

    Doesn’t work that way. These are different generations we are talking about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We CAN indeed calculate a rate of various crimes among people grouped by race and age, if race and age stats are available for the perpetrators.

    They would not be different generations.

    We would be comparing, say, white Americans aged 18-29 with African-"Americans" of that same age group, for the same year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Thomm
    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.

    You seem to have no idea how many 'feminist' laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.

    But not ignorant of the language and the proper use thereof, dick. I am not a “cuckservative”, asshole, because I am not a conservative, make no claim to conservative viewpoints, and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the “conservative” label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.

    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don’t preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.

    Got it, you hate women. How unusual — never happens in your pack of limp-dick fools.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    If Thomm ever left unz.com, and ceased posting a continuous stream of anti-white and anti-female garbage, perhaps he would finally get some.

    Of course I'm dating a beautiful white woman right now, the stuff of dreams for a smelly Hindu nationalist like him. What would I know.
    , @Thomm

    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don’t preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.
     
    Don't project your cowardice onto others. You are hell-bent on being a water-carrier for feminism. The extent to which you minimize that as the primary problem in America (and the real reason that white men are disengaging from white women) exposes your cowardly nature.

    BTW, a 'male feminist' like you is always a creepy predator in disguise. It is a very reliable indicator, really. Heartiste says this often.
    , @Truth

    and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the “conservative” label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.
     
    Go get you some, Thommy...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @manorchurch

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.
     
    But not ignorant of the language and the proper use thereof, dick. I am not a "cuckservative", asshole, because I am not a conservative, make no claim to conservative viewpoints, and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the "conservative" label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.
     
    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don't preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.
     
    Got it, you hate women. How unusual -- never happens in your pack of limp-dick fools.

    If Thomm ever left unz.com, and ceased posting a continuous stream of anti-white and anti-female garbage, perhaps he would finally get some.

    Of course I’m dating a beautiful white woman right now, the stuff of dreams for a smelly Hindu nationalist like him. What would I know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Of course I’m dating a beautiful white woman right now, the stuff of dreams for a smelly Hindu nationalist like him.
     
    Just one?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    It's okay, from his name he is hispanic. There are far too many hispanic babies already. Don't poke the bear...

    Agreed! On second thought, he should spend his life traveling and never have children. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @John Bushcroft

    Compare rates of murder, rape, aggravated assault, and the like per 1,000 of the same-age-group population, and see if you find higher per capita black violent crime rates even adjusted for age. I’ll look for these stats, as you should have before you made the ridiculous claim.

     

    Doesn't work that way. These are different generations we are talking about.

    We CAN indeed calculate a rate of various crimes among people grouped by race and age, if race and age stats are available for the perpetrators.

    They would not be different generations.

    We would be comparing, say, white Americans aged 18-29 with African-”Americans” of that same age group, for the same year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @myself

    But no worries they will be designer babies, parents will get to pick their gender, hair color, eye color, predicted height, IQ, and rid them of all the bad genes that cause addiction, cancer, alzheimer, dimentia, diabetes etc.
     
    So in the future, quality will replace quantity?

    It seems likely that only a very small percentage of parents will be able to afford this genetic tinkering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    If Thomm ever left unz.com, and ceased posting a continuous stream of anti-white and anti-female garbage, perhaps he would finally get some.

    Of course I'm dating a beautiful white woman right now, the stuff of dreams for a smelly Hindu nationalist like him. What would I know.

    Of course I’m dating a beautiful white woman right now, the stuff of dreams for a smelly Hindu nationalist like him.

    Just one?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Factorize says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Typical middle-class Americans are in debt and have a negative net worth excluding their homes. Many, many millions have a negative net worth overall because they don’t own a home or are underwater on their home.

    There is no reason to think that they will be able to afford genetic engineering. They will be more worried about finding a safe place to sleep, getting enough food, power outages and brownouts (coming in LA and coming to the rest of you thereafter), and avoiding violence at the hands of the even poorer, angry, poorly assimilated, nonwhite MAJORITY.

    America has this enormous amount of wealth. It is the one economy that the entire world wants to market to. Often when people allude to their supposed poverty it is quickly revealed that this is within the context of a 100k+ family income. My guess is that IQ uplift will simply displace other priorities. It is not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the next speculative bubble will be related to IQ enhancement. People will rationally choose to live in tents and have children with 150 IQ than live in mansions with 115 IQ children. Such a speculative frenzy at least will produce a lasting and substantial improvement in our community.

    Considering how truly massive such rates of return will be there will probably be a wide range of financial institutions and others that will be more than willing to provide the financing for such enhancement. The recent housing crisis in the US has lead many to question the moral priorities of those in the financial services industry. Providing the financing for the most rapid IQ enhancement in the history of humanity could help change public opinion about the industry. Increasing IQ will not be an empty exercise in creating a bubble without creating any actual wealth. In the modern world intelligence is the driving factor of wealth generation. Going directly to the fountain of wealth creation will have a truly extreme effect on the world of our future.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Well, in 2017 more than 70% of Americans had a household income below $100,000.

    And even of the households with annual income consistently $100,000 or above, how many have a positive net worth? When we count non-retirement assets, even fewer have a positive net worth.

    How many households in the USA have saved a decent amount for their retirement beyond "Social Security"? Not the majority.

    How many have credit-card debt? The vast majority.

    How many have an emergency fund saved up that would allow them to live without fear, deprivation, or dependency for even six months?

    The American people are nothing close to rich. I'll stand by my prediction that very few households will be able to afford genetic engineering to increase IQ or otherwise, and I'll add that most of them won't be able to borrow the money for it at any reasonable rate either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. anon[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Birthrate by white women has been below replacement for decades, because as a group they are the best educated and career oriented.
     
    Not really.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/better_life_lab/2017/11/09/the_stem_paradox_why_are_muslim_majority_countries_producing_so_many_female.html

    The article talks about women getting STEM degrees in Muslim countries. White women may be getting STEM degrees at a lower rate than white men, but they are getting college degrees at a higher rate than men. They are also the most successful group of women in the work force compared to black, Asian or hispanic women. Most of the women in upper management positions are white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. anon[204] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    So, everybody wins … sort of!
     
    The White "feminists" whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/children-intelligence-iq-mother-inherit-inheritance-genetics-genes-a7345596.html

    The White “feminists” whom you hate, hate, hate (to quote our old friend Whiskey) are indispensable to our future.

    It’s true boys get their IQ from their mothers, because they only have 1 X chromosome and it comes from their mothers. But girls have 2 X chromosomes and they could also get their intelligence from their fathers. Among people I know the smartest boys are often boys of mothers with STEM degrees.

    Most women with STEM degrees are not SJWs or even liberals. They are too busy working and too smart and logical to be liberals. Feminist SJWs are usually liberal arts majors who can’t count, and not much brain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. anon[204] • Disclaimer says:

    I think a lot of the success of Jews have to do with their women. Jewish women as a group are far better educated and successful professionally even compared to white women (see Kevin MacDonald’s The Chosen People). Smart mothers give birth to and raise smart children. Before Tiger Mothers we used to joke about Jewish mothers, like how they all want their sons to grow up to be doctors, and their daughters to grow up married to doctors.

    But recent trends suggest this is eroding because Jewish women are now consumed by feminism and narcissism, and are turning gay or marrying black men in drove. Perhaps that’s why a lot of Jewish men now marry Asian women, for preservation of their smart genes. Asian mothers are the new Jewish mothers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  165. @Jamie_NYC

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.

    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.

    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.

    Thanks Jamie. Surprised myself to see the demographically aware Derb make this mistake. And was scanning down in the comments to see if I needed to make the correction. Actually not just strictly “childhood”, but any mortality before being through your reproductive years.

    And it’s now really is only a tad higher than 2 now in the modern West because very few people actually do die young.

    This is more than just an academic concern, because when you see those abysmal TFRs in Western nations–1.4, 1.7, 1.2, 1.6–they do include the large and growing number of white women who in fact do not have children. (Two of my girl cousins are in this boat.) The ones who do have kids–are often–though not in the really low TFR places–averaging near replacement. But not having nearly enough kids to overcome the high level of childlessness and delayed single child, child bearing.

    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to “get out there” is that “two is not enough”. Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually “replacement”, because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. “Two means death”. Civilizational death.

    If you basically have your act together–are smart, and decent personality traits, have a job and your finances in order, are healthy with good genes, i.e. basically have your ducks in a row–then three or four or more kids should be your target. (Three should just be default.) Because you and your spouse are making up for the losers, screwups, non-starters, romantic failures/misfits, fertility failures. You are fit and having children is the most important thing you’ll do to move our civilization forward–heck just to keep it alive!

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Very accurate. I'll often see many white families out with 2 or 3 children. But then you see the number of white trash, welfare recipients, and urban "professional" (corporate drones) women with no children and not planning on having any.

    I would like to have three white children at the minimum, possibly four. I may have to content myself with two, as the woman is so powerful in these situations.

    Keep in mind, larger families are not only good numerically but also culturally. Larger families mean a larger sense of belonging and community which is sorely needed for many whites. One of my "regrets" is that I had so few relatives and family members.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to “get out there” is that “two is not enough”. Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually “replacement”, because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. “Two means death”. Civilizational death.
     
    I've got nothing against that, but I don't think "two means death" would be correct if it weren't for massive immigration and a higher fertility rate in other races/groups.

    It's like the bear thing. I don't have to be faster than that angry black bear. I just have to be faster than the other guy running away from him. What I mean is, an ABSOLUTE smaller population is inherently a GOOD thing, but a RELATIVELY smaller population vs. other "tribes' is bad. Exhibit A would be Japan.

    Anyway, it's most important to get the women thinking about having more babies, as they control the deal on that, and they have are the "bottle neck" (so to speak ;-}
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Factorize says:
    @Travis
    we are not close to upgrading the IQ of our offspring...first we will expand embryo selection (currently embryo selection is utilized to avoid some genetic diseases and select the sex of a child). Wealthy Parents will have the ability to select the best embryo of the dozens they create in vitro...but even if such methods of in vitro fertilization were less costly and available to the poor, most Americans would select for Height, eye color and athletic ability over an embryo with a slightly higher IQ but having the wrong eye color.

    The typical parent with an IQ of 100 does not want children with an IQ greater than 110. They certainly will not pay thousands of dollars to gain 10 IQ points. They will continue to procreate the natural way and use the thousands of dollars they saved to go to Disneyland...but if they were able to select a child for traits such as height and beauty they would mortgage their home to get a pretty daughter or an athletic son.

    I am not sure whether I agree with the idea that IQ uplift is now on the distant horizon. It is not entirely clear to me whether such enhancement is already underway in China. Merely selecting 1 in 10 embryos gives you up to a 15 point enhancement. No current population has an IQ greater than 1 SD above Greenwich mean. It should be clear to all how much of a difference 1 SD can have on society. America is fractured by just such an amount. It might at some be realized that we can longer afford not to make this investment in those within the 20% of most disadvantaged people in the community.

    Even doing a simple first round of genetically selecting against all diseases would have an overwhelming effect on our society. Such selection would certainly create essentially a new human species. The developing world might not be able to achieve a similar upgrade for many decades into the future.

    One thing that should be remembered is that the meaning of 100 IQ will shift through time. As you noted that people typically do want their children to be considered normal above all else. Having a child with mal-adaptively discordant IQ likely would not be understood to be of great benefit. Yet, normal will now shift through time. There will be a great interest in remaining normal as the uplift occurs. It can be reasonably predicted that in the not too distant future children with only IQs of 200 will be placed in classes analogous to those reserved today for those with developmental disabilities and people will feel great anguish related to the expected life trajectories that such children would face.

    I am not sure whether beauty or athleticism would work in the same way in the future. Up till now all the positives in the community wound up at the same place. You know that you have hit the favored class of people when you have colocated the intelligence, wealth, beauty, health etc. All the good is magnetically drawn to one central location. IQ uplift will override all of this. For me, all of my family genetic health concerns could probably be selected out after a generation or two. I am not sure whether I would then find any great advantage in say continuing to select against depression risk, or autistic risk etc. . Once achieving the standard level deemed normal for happiness within my community I am not sure what great advantage might be derived for selecting yet more happiness etc . However, with intelligence, one could well imagine that people will pursue uplift until they had achieved close to an optimal IQ. That might be in the range of hundreds of points.
    People with IQs in that range would have incomes of perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @YetAnotherAnon
    Not so long ago in the UK, tats were for sailors (iirc some Royals with naval service had them), bikers or criminals, and male earrings for sailors or gypsies. Now they're all over the place, maybe more on women than men.

    I was called for jury service recently, and about a third of the sixty-odd prospective jurors (chosen for three or four trials) had visible tattoos.

    A tattoo on a pretty girl is like that moustache on the Mona Lisa. On the other hand, they're signifiers (as a woman smoking was sixty years back) that the girl is what used to be called 'fast' (today's equivalent is probably 'DTF').

    Agreed, tattoos are abominations.

    If she’s really fast, she has a tattoo in a place where you can’t see it until she’s undressed. I remember a yellow smiley face with the caption, “Thank You. Come Again!” right next to the Delta of Venus.

    That shouldn’t interfere with breeding, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Factorize says:
    @manorchurch

    But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with “bad” genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.
     
    I am willing to bet real money that won't happen within an average lifetime -- call it 70 years. Too many people, too many conflicts, too few resources.

    I do not think many people are aware of where the research is right now. Nature Genetics has a forthcoming article in which they identify 37 SD of Educational Attainment. To put in this into some
    context 37 SD of IQ is 500 points. This means that 10 points of IQ enhancement based on embryo selection should at this time be understood as being feasible at reasonable expense with existing technology. IQ uplift has now arrived. There are some specific identifiable people within the community in which offering them publicly financed IQ enhancement technology for their future children would offer a compelling investment. It soon might be realized that we can longer afford not to make this investment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Corvinus says:
    @neutral
    Those things mentioned are really just symptoms of the root cause. The root cause is the jewish control over white (formerly white) nations.

    “Those things mentioned are really just symptoms of the root cause. The root cause is the jewish control over white (formerly white) nations.”

    Actually, the root causes are numerous, with “Jewish control” only lamented by conspiracy theorists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Factorize says:
    @Lucas McCrudy
    Through the genetic screening of embryos... but those embryos have to be conceived through IVF which (currently) costs $10k+ per cycle and presently only a dozen or so eggs can be harvested from a women's ovaries at a time using invasive and painful extraction methods. But in the (near) future you might be able to turn skin cells into gametes (eggs or sperm) and then you could easily create LOTS of embryos and then cull all the ones with "bad" genes. Or you could just screen fetuses for those cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. genes and use selective abortion- but destroying genetically undesirable fetuses is certainly more controversial than discarding unwanted embryos sitting in a lab.

    $10k for possibly 10 IQ points offers extraordinary value! If 1 IQ point equals $1,000 in income, then the cost of the enhancement would be rewarded in the first year of earning. People might feel it is no longer worthwhile to save for their children’s education, only their IQ enhancement. It is not clear whether the vast quantities of resources that are devoted to education actually increase psychometric G. That is after many hundreds of billions of dollars spent and several decades trying.

    Of course we are only talking about a primitive technology that has been in use for nearly half a century. For CRISPR to move through clinical trials it could take decades and decades. Embryo selection is a standard procedure used in reproductive clinics. When sperm or egg selection is developed than all bets are off. If one could develop a process that selected the best sperm and egg among 100 million, the IQ enhancement would be dramatically magnified. Perhaps you are now moving toward a 100 IQ increase in the first generation. There would be no associated moral squeamish involved in gamete selection as it would not be reasonable to suggest that gametes are in some way alive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Stem degrees and SJWs…all these details, manipulations etc to increase brain facility and so on..what do these have to do with fertility collapse and why..and what can be done about it, in the sense that that fertility collapse is not a good thing?

    I dont understand at all!

    Fertility collapse appears to be the product of depopulation efforts by the powers that be in society. the air and water are poisoned..so is the food. the medicines and health systems are geared to maximise death of those who use medicines and get into the health systems….

    everywhere one looks there is the sense of danger for human. little if anything appears set up to enhance human chances in life only to decrease them. in response to this article I expected to see analysis of what appears to be systematic attack on the population. I have seen little of that

    interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. Corvinus says:
    @Wazoo
    I think the decline in sex is due to (A) the huge surge in in-line porn, catering to every conceivable taste; (B) feminism, which has persuaded many women to spend their fertile years climbing the corporate ladder; and (C) the war on men, which has produced a generation of low-earning males with few job prospects and no interest in gaining social status or even interacting with people.

    “(B) feminism, which has persuaded many women to spend their fertile years climbing the corporate ladder”

    Which is in line with the American value called liberty.

    “and (C) the war on men, which has produced a generation of low-earning males with few job prospects and no interest in gaining social status or even interacting with people.”

    Perhaps this generation ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they perceive themselves to be “victims”. Nonetheless, this “war on men” meme is blown out of proportion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Corvinus says:

    “To throw in some hard stats, let’s visit a report that the CDC released last week, documenting the decline in sexual activity among teenagers: between the ages of 15 and 19, 42 percent of women and 44 percent of men reported having sex, relative to a significantly higher 51 percent of women and 60 percent of men in 1988.”

    Mr. Derbyshire, let us provide some context here.

    “The overall decrease in the prevalence of ever having had sexual intercourse during 2005–2015 is a positive change in sexual risk among adolescents (i.e., behaviors that place them at risk for human immunodeficiency virus, STI, or pregnancy) in the United States, an overall decrease that did not occur during the preceding 10 years. Further, decreases by grade and race/ethnicity represent positive changes among groups of students who have been determined in previous studies to be at higher risk for negative outcomes associated with early sexual initiation, such as greater numbers of partners, condom non-use, teen pregnancy, and STI (1–3). More work is needed to understand the reasons for these decreases and to ensure that they continue.”

    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm665152a1.htm

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. @AnotherDad


    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.
     
    Thanks Jamie. Surprised myself to see the demographically aware Derb make this mistake. And was scanning down in the comments to see if I needed to make the correction. Actually not just strictly "childhood", but any mortality before being through your reproductive years.

    And it's now really is only a tad higher than 2 now in the modern West because very few people actually do die young.

    This is more than just an academic concern, because when you see those abysmal TFRs in Western nations--1.4, 1.7, 1.2, 1.6--they do include the large and growing number of white women who in fact do not have children. (Two of my girl cousins are in this boat.) The ones who do have kids--are often--though not in the really low TFR places--averaging near replacement. But not having nearly enough kids to overcome the high level of childlessness and delayed single child, child bearing.


    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to "get out there" is that "two is not enough". Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually "replacement", because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. "Two means death". Civilizational death.

    If you basically have your act together--are smart, and decent personality traits, have a job and your finances in order, are healthy with good genes, i.e. basically have your ducks in a row--then three or four or more kids should be your target. (Three should just be default.) Because you and your spouse are making up for the losers, screwups, non-starters, romantic failures/misfits, fertility failures. You are fit and having children is the most important thing you'll do to move our civilization forward--heck just to keep it alive!

    Very accurate. I’ll often see many white families out with 2 or 3 children. But then you see the number of white trash, welfare recipients, and urban “professional” (corporate drones) women with no children and not planning on having any.

    I would like to have three white children at the minimum, possibly four. I may have to content myself with two, as the woman is so powerful in these situations.

    Keep in mind, larger families are not only good numerically but also culturally. Larger families mean a larger sense of belonging and community which is sorely needed for many whites. One of my “regrets” is that I had so few relatives and family members.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    I am very interested in your thoughts on IQ uplift. In your view have we now reached the Genetic Singularity Event time horizon (i.e., Should fertility now be expected to collapse imminently as people postpone child-bearing in order to avoid children that would need to receive life-long guaranteed incomes? A 1 SD IQ disadvantage would make this nearly certain). Would investing $10-20k per child for genetic enhancement (IQ, disease selection) be something that you would consider?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. njguy73 says:

    Wait, Maxim‘s still around? I thought it went belly-up years ago. Who the hell’s buying it? Guys who don’t have cable or a laptop?

    I know Spin went online years ago, and Details and Spy are gone. Looks like the ’90s aren’t dead yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  176. Factorize says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Very accurate. I'll often see many white families out with 2 or 3 children. But then you see the number of white trash, welfare recipients, and urban "professional" (corporate drones) women with no children and not planning on having any.

    I would like to have three white children at the minimum, possibly four. I may have to content myself with two, as the woman is so powerful in these situations.

    Keep in mind, larger families are not only good numerically but also culturally. Larger families mean a larger sense of belonging and community which is sorely needed for many whites. One of my "regrets" is that I had so few relatives and family members.

    I am very interested in your thoughts on IQ uplift. In your view have we now reached the Genetic Singularity Event time horizon (i.e., Should fertility now be expected to collapse imminently as people postpone child-bearing in order to avoid children that would need to receive life-long guaranteed incomes? A 1 SD IQ disadvantage would make this nearly certain). Would investing $10-20k per child for genetic enhancement (IQ, disease selection) be something that you would consider?

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Well I have to admit that I don't know enough about that possibility. I tend to focus more on improving current demographics through feasible and practical measures, rather than on science fiction.

    That's not to put down your area of interest. That could totally upend the demographic game. But I am too pragmatic, and not much of a visionary. I can devise and implement strategies to remedy current problems, but not to prevent future ones. Reactive, not proactive, yada yada yada.

    But if such things came true people like John Derbyshire (and myself, though this is a hobby and not my job) would be put right out of business that's for sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. njguy73 says:

    Maxim is a “lads” magazine, filled with pictures of women that young men would be having sex with…if they could be bothered.

    No, more like “women that young men would be having sex with…if they were actors, musicians, or athletes.” You want to bang Blake Lively, Katy Perry, or Minka Kelly? Be Ryan Reynolds, John Mayer, or Derek Jeter.

    Me? I could never sing or hit a curveball. But I could have been a good smarmy douchebag…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  178. oh oh! point taken?

    hahaha

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. Travis says:
    @myself

    What is your timeline on this rolling out?
     
    While I try not to be prone to wild speculation, I will try to be somewhat specific. Disclaimer: I am not a professional in any related field, just someone who reads.

    I think in 10 years, on the outside, most genetic defects and diseases will be eliminated in newborns. So being prone to cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, dwarfism, giantism etc. - mostly gone.

    After that, I don't know. CRISPR and gene-editing are extremely powerful and precise.

    There is now a study being conducted in which they are aiming to sequence the genomes of one million very high IQ individuals to isolate the genetic bases of intelligence - obviously to be able to then apply the findings in order to deliberately engineer very high IQ people. That is just the first step.

    Beyond that, we are probably looking at beings who are no longer, strictly speaking, human. The human brain processes information in certain ways, but artificial intelligence does so differently, and possibly with more efficiency.

    So the obvious move would be to engineer people whose brain processes are closer to that of AIs rather than mere hyper-genius humans. Better still to combine the human intuition and knowledge synthesis ability with the blazing speed of computers.

    IQ enhancement is by far the trickiest and most difficult of the challenges. If we manage that, everything else - athletic ability, looks, eye/hair/skin color - is trivial in comparison.

    Above, I mentioned that the future beings would be quite unlike us. Well, consider that with genetic science, even our traditional racial concepts would be challenged. Future humans might resemble no one who walks the earth today - instead, they may be some, probably aesthetically very pleasing, combination of what their parents consider the best features of the ENTIRE human genome.

    What ethnicity would you ascribe to someone like that? Not anything that exists at present.

    As to the precise "moment" of genetic uplift, I don't think we'll pin it down. It's not a moment, it's a continuous, ongoing process. Which means that children born after 2030 will be superior to their parents, but children born in 2033 will be better still, and those born in 2035 even better. And so on.

    There is no reason to think that genetic science is a "one and done" phenomenon. There won't be a moment of uplift and then few developments afterwards - it will just keep going.

    And that's just on the "meat" side of things. To be blown away, read up on the advancing field of AI, and the prospects of IQ enhancement via direct human-machine interface.

    CRSPIR technology will not be be widely used over the next 10 years….it would require women to have their eggs removed and then a round of in vitro fertilization with the altered DNA….not very practical and few Americans would pay $15,000 to have a baby with a slightly high IQ probability. They would be more likely to pay the extra $15,000 to get a taller, stronger , more athletic son with an IQ of 105 than have a shorter, weaker son with an IQ of 115.

    even today we do not know the causes of the majority of those diagnosed as Mentally Retarded…about 30% of cases of mental retardation are caused by hereditary factors….
    Usually the cause of mental retardation cannot be determined. Often the cause is due exposure to a virus or bacteria while in utero or caused by lack of oxygen to the babies brain during delivery…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This is an incorrect understanding of CRISPR(it sounds like the Blade Runner version of genetics, actually). CRISPR can be administrated postpartum.

    https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Factorize
    I am very interested in your thoughts on IQ uplift. In your view have we now reached the Genetic Singularity Event time horizon (i.e., Should fertility now be expected to collapse imminently as people postpone child-bearing in order to avoid children that would need to receive life-long guaranteed incomes? A 1 SD IQ disadvantage would make this nearly certain). Would investing $10-20k per child for genetic enhancement (IQ, disease selection) be something that you would consider?

    Well I have to admit that I don’t know enough about that possibility. I tend to focus more on improving current demographics through feasible and practical measures, rather than on science fiction.

    That’s not to put down your area of interest. That could totally upend the demographic game. But I am too pragmatic, and not much of a visionary. I can devise and implement strategies to remedy current problems, but not to prevent future ones. Reactive, not proactive, yada yada yada.

    But if such things came true people like John Derbyshire (and myself, though this is a hobby and not my job) would be put right out of business that’s for sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Travis
    CRSPIR technology will not be be widely used over the next 10 years....it would require women to have their eggs removed and then a round of in vitro fertilization with the altered DNA....not very practical and few Americans would pay $15,000 to have a baby with a slightly high IQ probability. They would be more likely to pay the extra $15,000 to get a taller, stronger , more athletic son with an IQ of 105 than have a shorter, weaker son with an IQ of 115.

    even today we do not know the causes of the majority of those diagnosed as Mentally Retarded...about 30% of cases of mental retardation are caused by hereditary factors....
    Usually the cause of mental retardation cannot be determined. Often the cause is due exposure to a virus or bacteria while in utero or caused by lack of oxygen to the babies brain during delivery...

    This is an incorrect understanding of CRISPR(it sounds like the Blade Runner version of genetics, actually). CRISPR can be administrated postpartum.

    https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    The article you linked describes using CRIPSR gene editing on immune cells in the blood, not altering someones genes to cure a genetic disease....CRISPR technology must be used prior to fetal development to increase IQ, as the foundation of the brain is formed during the first 12 weeks of development...CRISPR technology will not be able to make low IQ babies smart after they are born..nor will it have the ability to reverse autism or Schizophrenia because these diseases are the result of fetal brain developmental problems that effect the structure of the brain as it is being formed in utero..

    we have identified over 200 genetic causes of retardation...yet 70% of the mentally retarded have an unknown cause or non-genetic cause such as a virus or fetal alcohol syndrome...... in utero diseases and lack of oxygen during birth are significant causes of retardation...Already in America the majority of mentally retarded embryos are aborted when discovered , yet still 1% of white babies born over the last 15 years are mentally retarded because we most cases cannot be identified although we have the ability to identify 200 genetic causes of retardation within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy...Retardation has yet to be eliminated via abortion , mostly because we cannot identify most causes of retardation...thus we cannot prevent the thousands of retarded babies from being born because we cannot identify the reasons they are retarded...CRISP technology could theoretically prevent many abortions if the embryos are selected before being implanted but this will have little effect on the number of mentally retarded white babies, since most are already aborted today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @RadicalCenter
    Excellent points, sir.

    And what exactly are the one percent of hookup guys even achieving? None of it perpetuates their genes, their family name and traditions, their culture and mores, to the new next generation. (Unless they’re African-like scum who knock women up and abandon them, which leads to their next generation ending up disproportionately incarcerated, prematurely dead, drug-addicted, homosexual, and all the other charming things that happen so often to kids with no steady dad around.)

    My parents and their friends didn’t screw like animals or “play the field” for a lot of years before marrying and settling down. And I hardly think their generation is less manly or less normal than the current ones..

    Hooking up with somebody satisfies the immediate desire for sex. It gives men a feeling of masculinity and being “alpha”.

    It does not, however produce white children and women will immediately rush to the abortion clinic if they do get pregnant.

    Ironically, men don’t have to be in a rush to reproduce. Men can also be much happier as bachelor’s their whole lives. Women are the ones spurning men for their careers and cats, and also ending up stressed and miserable.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a prude nor am I a misogynist. I don’t see anything wrong with sex, or even “playing the field”, as you put it, for a time. The problem is that these millenials are 35 and still drinking like fish and still trying to stick their increasingly limp dicks into increasingly worn vaginas.

    At a certain point it’s time to grow up and realize that hookup culture doesn’t lead anywhere, that’s my point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @AnotherDad


    For a stable population, one that’s neither increasing nor decreasing, you need a TFR a tad higher than two per woman, to allow for people who don’t reproduce.
     
    You need a number slightly larger than two to account for child mortality and the fact that slightly more boys than girls are being born.
     
    Thanks Jamie. Surprised myself to see the demographically aware Derb make this mistake. And was scanning down in the comments to see if I needed to make the correction. Actually not just strictly "childhood", but any mortality before being through your reproductive years.

    And it's now really is only a tad higher than 2 now in the modern West because very few people actually do die young.

    This is more than just an academic concern, because when you see those abysmal TFRs in Western nations--1.4, 1.7, 1.2, 1.6--they do include the large and growing number of white women who in fact do not have children. (Two of my girl cousins are in this boat.) The ones who do have kids--are often--though not in the really low TFR places--averaging near replacement. But not having nearly enough kids to overcome the high level of childlessness and delayed single child, child bearing.


    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to "get out there" is that "two is not enough". Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually "replacement", because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. "Two means death". Civilizational death.

    If you basically have your act together--are smart, and decent personality traits, have a job and your finances in order, are healthy with good genes, i.e. basically have your ducks in a row--then three or four or more kids should be your target. (Three should just be default.) Because you and your spouse are making up for the losers, screwups, non-starters, romantic failures/misfits, fertility failures. You are fit and having children is the most important thing you'll do to move our civilization forward--heck just to keep it alive!

    One my ideas that i encourage white conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists to “get out there” is that “two is not enough”. Two kids from people who are actually forming families and getting busy is not actually “replacement”, because so many other people never get there or are not able (physically) to get it done. “Two means death”. Civilizational death.

    I’ve got nothing against that, but I don’t think “two means death” would be correct if it weren’t for massive immigration and a higher fertility rate in other races/groups.

    It’s like the bear thing. I don’t have to be faster than that angry black bear. I just have to be faster than the other guy running away from him. What I mean is, an ABSOLUTE smaller population is inherently a GOOD thing, but a RELATIVELY smaller population vs. other “tribes’ is bad. Exhibit A would be Japan.

    Anyway, it’s most important to get the women thinking about having more babies, as they control the deal on that, and they have are the “bottle neck” (so to speak ;-}

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Thomm says:
    @manorchurch

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.
     
    But not ignorant of the language and the proper use thereof, dick. I am not a "cuckservative", asshole, because I am not a conservative, make no claim to conservative viewpoints, and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the "conservative" label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.
     
    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don't preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.
     
    Got it, you hate women. How unusual -- never happens in your pack of limp-dick fools.

    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don’t preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Don’t project your cowardice onto others. You are hell-bent on being a water-carrier for feminism. The extent to which you minimize that as the primary problem in America (and the real reason that white men are disengaging from white women) exposes your cowardly nature.

    BTW, a ‘male feminist’ like you is always a creepy predator in disguise. It is a very reliable indicator, really. Heartiste says this often.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Don’t project your cowardice onto others. You are hell-bent on being a water-carrier for feminism.
     
    And you are a smarmy little low-testosterone gamma male, creeping about the trashrooms of apartment complexes, sniffing out used menstrual products.

    Just for the record, you disgusting little dirt bag, I observe the actions of women, as groups or single individuals, in the same way as I observe the male side. Your shrieks are emasculate; it is quite obvious you have no relationship whatsoever with any female, ever. Your fury with women is characteristic of what Freud called "repressed homosexuality".

    Some day, you may have something to say that is not the same worn-out, limp-dick hatred of women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Hildebrand
    "It seems that your “last known cohort” terminated in 1962, right in the thick of the baby boom"

    Do you know what is "cohort" mean? Dates in this figure is the years of birth of MOTHERS, not the years of birth of children. The last known cohort is not 1962 but 1975 who almost complete their reproductive career very recently.

    No kidding. That’s exactly what I meant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Maciano says:
    @Anon
    So many smart commenters here, and you even seem like one but then you drop this retarded idea that liberals by default produce liberal children (and viceversa w conservatives). Thats not how DNA works That's not even how nurture works, m oron, what is this the breitfart comment section?

    Well, you’re partly right. I was careless, since I wrote the response on my phone.

    Political attitudes are moderately heritable, and lefties get fewer children on average. Both statements are factually true.

    This isn’t to say that lefties can’t convert conservatives to leftism. It simply means that lefties tend to die off, while conservatives tend to leave more children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    On the other hand, the heritability of leftism, at least as it expresses itself in today's current political climate, may change in the future. We may soon (or at least someday) have a supercomputer/AI that can tell us, with certainty, that some individuals and/or races have inferior or superior mental abilities, personality profiles, et al. The current expression of leftism is built on accepting the religion of equality. How will this genotype/personality type react when it's widely accepted that the core tenant of this faith (biological equality) is proven as false as the flat earth and "Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales"?

    Also, you never no with children. My parents are still Marxists, I was a leftist up until mid-college, and my inherent inclination skews towards libertarianism (based on my readings of Haidt's moral modules). However, because of my exposure to HBD I've become a right-wing, alt-right sympathizer, despite being Jewish.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Travis says:
    @myself

    It is possible that this article will finally alert the mainstream that an IQ uplift is now on the horizon.
     
    I agree that we are on the verge of extensive genetic engineering. This is a world-wide phenomenon.

    My take on it is that the lower the population's current IQ, the more they will benefit from the IQ-enhancement technology.

    The lower your IQ, the more you'd want to avail of the technology for your children and descendants.

    Look for nations to have national IQ enhancement programs, and to subsidize genetic enhancement for their populations.

    At present, many accept jobs because of the health-care benefits.

    In the future, genetic enhancement at company expense will be one of the most desired perks on offer. THAT is the future!

    The low IQ populations will be much less likely utilize technology to improve the IQ of their children,…they are more likely to use the technology to produce stronger, bigger more athletic male children.

    Low IQ women today can easily choose high IQ males to mate with…yet they do not. They avoid them and choose to have children with strong alpha males, often high school dropouts who will never provide four them or marry them…

    If Low IQ females were given free high IQ sperm they would avoid it. But they probably would choose to be inseminated by sperm from NBA athletes or celebrities like Justin Timberlake and they would probably pay thousands of dollars to acquire sperm from NBA athletes and celebrities…

    If America wanted to increase the IQ of our population, the fastest method would be sterilizing all women on welfare…and encouraging poor females to get inseminated with sperm from high IQ males…but this is not politically feasible..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Travis says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    This is an incorrect understanding of CRISPR(it sounds like the Blade Runner version of genetics, actually). CRISPR can be administrated postpartum.

    https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/

    The article you linked describes using CRIPSR gene editing on immune cells in the blood, not altering someones genes to cure a genetic disease….CRISPR technology must be used prior to fetal development to increase IQ, as the foundation of the brain is formed during the first 12 weeks of development…CRISPR technology will not be able to make low IQ babies smart after they are born..nor will it have the ability to reverse autism or Schizophrenia because these diseases are the result of fetal brain developmental problems that effect the structure of the brain as it is being formed in utero..

    we have identified over 200 genetic causes of retardation…yet 70% of the mentally retarded have an unknown cause or non-genetic cause such as a virus or fetal alcohol syndrome…… in utero diseases and lack of oxygen during birth are significant causes of retardation…Already in America the majority of mentally retarded embryos are aborted when discovered , yet still 1% of white babies born over the last 15 years are mentally retarded because we most cases cannot be identified although we have the ability to identify 200 genetic causes of retardation within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy…Retardation has yet to be eliminated via abortion , mostly because we cannot identify most causes of retardation…thus we cannot prevent the thousands of retarded babies from being born because we cannot identify the reasons they are retarded…CRISP technology could theoretically prevent many abortions if the embryos are selected before being implanted but this will have little effect on the number of mentally retarded white babies, since most are already aborted today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    1) Genes aren't independent of somatic(or gamete, for that matter) cells. Genetic controls for neurons would be in the somatic(in this case, neurons and related infrastructure). Alter that is quite possible.

    2) Assuming, for example, that autism is a prenatal condition, it still would be treatable postnatally. After birth, neurons continue to be rapidly added and the brain size increases around 60-70% in the first 90 days. The brain isn't a static organ, most dysfunctions have much to do with continuing problems(serotonin processing in schizophrenia patients, for example).

    3) Most theories of IQ development are "spell checking" similar to your concerns of avoiding mental retardation in children. The brain continues to develop postnatally, so it should provide IQ gains, assuming our model is correct.

    4) CRISPR is most useful for specific, one-letter corrections such as Tay-Sachs disease. Even if untreated prenatally, in theory CRISPR would limit damage and its probably that the brain could recover if the HEX-A defect is fixed prior to three/six months of age.

    5) It is theoretically possible to interact with babies prenatally to deliver treatments, though concerns of maternal environment(womb contamination) are always there.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. RWS says:
    @m___
    What is wrong with the proportionality?

    Is a growing population desirable as suggested by the title


    Fertility Collapse—Minorities Hardest Hit! Electing A New People Delayed?
     

    Is realized fertility as opposed to none-realized fertility to be distinguished?

    Consumerism, is it part of the issue? Capitalism only expands the life of a tiny minority, giving them the independence to breed, raise children as another expression of being.

    The research into population must be global, particulate, and yes, a very important variable to be included in any world-view, theoretical economics, sustainability, as does the rest of the planet outside the human world.

    There is nowhere such an important variable as population issues left out of any theoretical equation, plan, as to where humanity's future is to evolve. Demographics detailed, and how to interact with them, as a group, likewise as an individual is t-h-e most important variable.

    On the psychological level, digital masturbation, corn-syrup and palm-oil must affect the potential to fertility, as does population density, living conditions. Vaguely, we used to call it quality of life.

    Tweak for quality human, instead of quantity human, is it not time to include this as a moral option?

    Even the proportionality between men and women should be considered.

    Excellent observation.

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?
     
    To generate more wealth for the wealthy. Same reason welfare states exist in the first place.

    ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Thomm

    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don’t preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.
     
    Don't project your cowardice onto others. You are hell-bent on being a water-carrier for feminism. The extent to which you minimize that as the primary problem in America (and the real reason that white men are disengaging from white women) exposes your cowardly nature.

    BTW, a 'male feminist' like you is always a creepy predator in disguise. It is a very reliable indicator, really. Heartiste says this often.

    Don’t project your cowardice onto others. You are hell-bent on being a water-carrier for feminism.

    And you are a smarmy little low-testosterone gamma male, creeping about the trashrooms of apartment complexes, sniffing out used menstrual products.

    Just for the record, you disgusting little dirt bag, I observe the actions of women, as groups or single individuals, in the same way as I observe the male side. Your shrieks are emasculate; it is quite obvious you have no relationship whatsoever with any female, ever. Your fury with women is characteristic of what Freud called “repressed homosexuality”.

    Some day, you may have something to say that is not the same worn-out, limp-dick hatred of women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @RWS
    Excellent observation.

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?

    To generate more wealth for the wealthy. Same reason welfare states exist in the first place.

    ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RWS
    "ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population."

    We agree (though I'd press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. RWS says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    This is not very surprising, birth rates are dropping everywhere with sub-Saharan Africa being the exception. That is why growth rates will stay low for the next few decades as there will be fewer people who will be working and they will largely be supporting aged populations in need of expensive medical and social care. That will probably lead to more demand for immigration as the quickest way to boost the workforce.

    More demand, but no solution: immigrants from the Third World are net drains on society and government in both the United States and Great Britain, if not also in other Western nations, as in the aggregate they bring few skills to aid (let alone improve) the receiving states.

    More likely is that the welfare states of the West will collapse of their own weight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    The competition will be for skilled First Worlders with brains, not developing world helots.
    , @cynthia curran
    Many Latin American countries now have low birth rates like Chile and Brazil. Probably, Latin America will eventually follow Eastern Europe and having lower birth rates than the US because the living standards are not as high. Puerto Rico now is lower than the US at 10 kids per 1,000 versus 13 for the US. So, because Mexicans lived the most in high cost of living California there birth rates will drop faster than whites in the south.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. RWS says:
    @manorchurch

    Why, save to prolong the life of the unsustainable welfare state, should any thinking human being wish to increase the population of the already overburdened Earth?
     
    To generate more wealth for the wealthy. Same reason welfare states exist in the first place.

    ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population.

    “ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population.”

    We agree (though I’d press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    There is an inevitable consequence of a decreased human population: less aggregate human psychometric potential. We must now be at or very close to the highest level of psychometric potential ever achieved by our species. There should be no great mystery as to why the many of the greatest thinkers that ever lived made contributions in the 20th and 21st centuries. A billion less people means that we will forego the intellectual potential of a person with 1 in a billion intellect and 1,000 people with 1 in a million intellect. With complete certainly it can be stated that all of humanity will be impoverished by such a loss. We could reach a time in which no one could help us solve our numerous pressing problems.
    , @manorchurch

    We agree (though I’d press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).
     
    Yeah, me too. Most people have no concept of population dynamics within an ecosystem. I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn't. Feet of clay, I guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Factorize says:
    @RWS
    "ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population."

    We agree (though I'd press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).

    There is an inevitable consequence of a decreased human population: less aggregate human psychometric potential. We must now be at or very close to the highest level of psychometric potential ever achieved by our species. There should be no great mystery as to why the many of the greatest thinkers that ever lived made contributions in the 20th and 21st centuries. A billion less people means that we will forego the intellectual potential of a person with 1 in a billion intellect and 1,000 people with 1 in a million intellect. With complete certainly it can be stated that all of humanity will be impoverished by such a loss. We could reach a time in which no one could help us solve our numerous pressing problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @manorchurch

    There is an inevitable consequence of a decreased human population: less aggregate human psychometric potential.
     
    Presumptuous horse manure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Rosie says:
    @TheJester
    Try Northern Virginia. We know quite a few Hispanic females. In Northern Virginia, it's almost impossible not to since immigrants gravitate to high-paying urban areas ... and we live in the richest county in the United States. My sample includes numerous Hispanic friends and many young Hispanic girls who were in our daughter's social group in high school and junior college (our daughter has since married and moved away).

    Hence, I stand by my claim ... "warm and feminine".

    Aside: Note iSteve's satirical post about the NYT's claim about immigrants allegedly repopulating America's small towns. I stand with iSteve ... nonsense! Loudoun and surrounding urban counties are a virtual "United Nations". If you want to educate your children about the world and its diversity, don't go on a world tour, send your children to a local public school ... or wander through a local Costco.

    We have to drive deep into Pennsylvania to find a traditional American town that reminds us of where we grew up. Surprise! Marginal wealth ... few blacks ... few Hispanics ... no Hindi ... no Chinese ... no BMWs ... and young people don't have to speak Spanish to work in the local fast food restaurants.

    Hence, I stand by my claim … “warm and feminine”.

    I now understand what Thomm means when he says “White trashionalism” is identical with feminism.

    The wandering capitalist figures he might as well replace White workers with more pliant, grateful, and submissive brown workers. White nationalists object.

    Jester figures White men might as well replace White women with brown ones, and for precisely the same reason. Feminists object.

    I have been trying to tell alt-Right men that “feminists” are potential allies while MGTOW are a menace. Help sometimes comes from unexpected places.

    Thanks, Jester & Thomm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @RWS
    "ZPG is not a worthy goal. A prosperous Earth is optimal at ~4B total population."

    We agree (though I'd press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).

    We agree (though I’d press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).

    Yeah, me too. Most people have no concept of population dynamics within an ecosystem. I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn’t. Feet of clay, I guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RWS
    "I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn’t."

    We've the same tendency. An ecologist uncle drilled me on the many horrors to result from over-population, however; and, as an historian, I early learned that the population of the Earth for most of recorded history might have totalled only about five hundred millions -- yet we produced great art and science.

    All that an increasing population does is to sustain for awhile longer the ultimately impossible welfare state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Travis
    The article you linked describes using CRIPSR gene editing on immune cells in the blood, not altering someones genes to cure a genetic disease....CRISPR technology must be used prior to fetal development to increase IQ, as the foundation of the brain is formed during the first 12 weeks of development...CRISPR technology will not be able to make low IQ babies smart after they are born..nor will it have the ability to reverse autism or Schizophrenia because these diseases are the result of fetal brain developmental problems that effect the structure of the brain as it is being formed in utero..

    we have identified over 200 genetic causes of retardation...yet 70% of the mentally retarded have an unknown cause or non-genetic cause such as a virus or fetal alcohol syndrome...... in utero diseases and lack of oxygen during birth are significant causes of retardation...Already in America the majority of mentally retarded embryos are aborted when discovered , yet still 1% of white babies born over the last 15 years are mentally retarded because we most cases cannot be identified although we have the ability to identify 200 genetic causes of retardation within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy...Retardation has yet to be eliminated via abortion , mostly because we cannot identify most causes of retardation...thus we cannot prevent the thousands of retarded babies from being born because we cannot identify the reasons they are retarded...CRISP technology could theoretically prevent many abortions if the embryos are selected before being implanted but this will have little effect on the number of mentally retarded white babies, since most are already aborted today.

    1) Genes aren’t independent of somatic(or gamete, for that matter) cells. Genetic controls for neurons would be in the somatic(in this case, neurons and related infrastructure). Alter that is quite possible.

    2) Assuming, for example, that autism is a prenatal condition, it still would be treatable postnatally. After birth, neurons continue to be rapidly added and the brain size increases around 60-70% in the first 90 days. The brain isn’t a static organ, most dysfunctions have much to do with continuing problems(serotonin processing in schizophrenia patients, for example).

    3) Most theories of IQ development are “spell checking” similar to your concerns of avoiding mental retardation in children. The brain continues to develop postnatally, so it should provide IQ gains, assuming our model is correct.

    4) CRISPR is most useful for specific, one-letter corrections such as Tay-Sachs disease. Even if untreated prenatally, in theory CRISPR would limit damage and its probably that the brain could recover if the HEX-A defect is fixed prior to three/six months of age.

    5) It is theoretically possible to interact with babies prenatally to deliver treatments, though concerns of maternal environment(womb contamination) are always there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    there are hundreds of genes associated with low IQ, autism and schizophrenia. Scientists will never find any specific gene which "causes" these diseases....
    If your identical twin has the illness, you have a roughly 50% chance of developing schizophrenia. If both of your parents have schizophrenia, you have a 36% likelihood of developing the illness...yet scientists still are unable too find the genes which cause it nor have they determined how the genes associated with schizophrenia result in increased risk of schizophrenia or autism, or bipolar disorders etc...

    it is doubtful we will have identified all the genes responsible for mental retardation, and mental illness over the next decade...before CRISPR can be utilized we first must find the genetic causes of these diseases, which we are very far from achieving today. The known genetic effects are not found to have a significant impact on IQ......hundreds of genes involved and most of the studies seem to involve higher IQ whites or Asians...have they found enough high IQ blacks to determine if they have a different set of genes effecting IQ ? What if the genes responsible for higher IQ Caucasians do not raise the IQ in Blacks ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Factorize
    There is an inevitable consequence of a decreased human population: less aggregate human psychometric potential. We must now be at or very close to the highest level of psychometric potential ever achieved by our species. There should be no great mystery as to why the many of the greatest thinkers that ever lived made contributions in the 20th and 21st centuries. A billion less people means that we will forego the intellectual potential of a person with 1 in a billion intellect and 1,000 people with 1 in a million intellect. With complete certainly it can be stated that all of humanity will be impoverished by such a loss. We could reach a time in which no one could help us solve our numerous pressing problems.

    There is an inevitable consequence of a decreased human population: less aggregate human psychometric potential.

    Presumptuous horse manure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @John Bushcroft
    Economics 101 can't defy the laws of energy. If there is no one around to pay the debts of the previous generations, they don't get paid.

    Maybe it is Economics 102. Suppose you have an interest-earning savings account and an interest-requiring mortgage, and no outside income. The savings account can pay the mortgage account so the credits and debits just cancel. In terms of its government debt, Japan Inc looks like that. Actually their savings account is larger, due to substantial foreign debt holdings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Factorize
    America has this enormous amount of wealth. It is the one economy that the entire world wants to market to. Often when people allude to their supposed poverty it is quickly revealed that this is within the context of a 100k+ family income. My guess is that IQ uplift will simply displace other priorities. It is not entirely unreasonable to suspect that the next speculative bubble will be related to IQ enhancement. People will rationally choose to live in tents and have children with 150 IQ than live in mansions with 115 IQ children. Such a speculative frenzy at least will produce a lasting and substantial improvement in our community.

    Considering how truly massive such rates of return will be there will probably be a wide range of financial institutions and others that will be more than willing to provide the financing for such enhancement. The recent housing crisis in the US has lead many to question the moral priorities of those in the financial services industry. Providing the financing for the most rapid IQ enhancement in the history of humanity could help change public opinion about the industry. Increasing IQ will not be an empty exercise in creating a bubble without creating any actual wealth. In the modern world intelligence is the driving factor of wealth generation. Going directly to the fountain of wealth creation will have a truly extreme effect on the world of our future.

    Well, in 2017 more than 70% of Americans had a household income below $100,000.

    And even of the households with annual income consistently $100,000 or above, how many have a positive net worth? When we count non-retirement assets, even fewer have a positive net worth.

    How many households in the USA have saved a decent amount for their retirement beyond “Social Security”? Not the majority.

    How many have credit-card debt? The vast majority.

    How many have an emergency fund saved up that would allow them to live without fear, deprivation, or dependency for even six months?

    The American people are nothing close to rich. I’ll stand by my prediction that very few households will be able to afford genetic engineering to increase IQ or otherwise, and I’ll add that most of them won’t be able to borrow the money for it at any reasonable rate either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Travis says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    1) Genes aren't independent of somatic(or gamete, for that matter) cells. Genetic controls for neurons would be in the somatic(in this case, neurons and related infrastructure). Alter that is quite possible.

    2) Assuming, for example, that autism is a prenatal condition, it still would be treatable postnatally. After birth, neurons continue to be rapidly added and the brain size increases around 60-70% in the first 90 days. The brain isn't a static organ, most dysfunctions have much to do with continuing problems(serotonin processing in schizophrenia patients, for example).

    3) Most theories of IQ development are "spell checking" similar to your concerns of avoiding mental retardation in children. The brain continues to develop postnatally, so it should provide IQ gains, assuming our model is correct.

    4) CRISPR is most useful for specific, one-letter corrections such as Tay-Sachs disease. Even if untreated prenatally, in theory CRISPR would limit damage and its probably that the brain could recover if the HEX-A defect is fixed prior to three/six months of age.

    5) It is theoretically possible to interact with babies prenatally to deliver treatments, though concerns of maternal environment(womb contamination) are always there.

    there are hundreds of genes associated with low IQ, autism and schizophrenia. Scientists will never find any specific gene which “causes” these diseases….
    If your identical twin has the illness, you have a roughly 50% chance of developing schizophrenia. If both of your parents have schizophrenia, you have a 36% likelihood of developing the illness…yet scientists still are unable too find the genes which cause it nor have they determined how the genes associated with schizophrenia result in increased risk of schizophrenia or autism, or bipolar disorders etc…

    it is doubtful we will have identified all the genes responsible for mental retardation, and mental illness over the next decade…before CRISPR can be utilized we first must find the genetic causes of these diseases, which we are very far from achieving today. The known genetic effects are not found to have a significant impact on IQ……hundreds of genes involved and most of the studies seem to involve higher IQ whites or Asians…have they found enough high IQ blacks to determine if they have a different set of genes effecting IQ ? What if the genes responsible for higher IQ Caucasians do not raise the IQ in Blacks ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Yes, most issues will involve multiple genetic controls, possibly epigenetic effects as well(Down Syndrome is a pretty dramatic example of this). Still, you fix what you can and move from there. IMHO if things such as Tay-Sachs and kernicterus get treated, we're already making good progress.

    For some, it is indeed a single gene error that causes it. But yes, not the vast majority.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Travis
    there are hundreds of genes associated with low IQ, autism and schizophrenia. Scientists will never find any specific gene which "causes" these diseases....
    If your identical twin has the illness, you have a roughly 50% chance of developing schizophrenia. If both of your parents have schizophrenia, you have a 36% likelihood of developing the illness...yet scientists still are unable too find the genes which cause it nor have they determined how the genes associated with schizophrenia result in increased risk of schizophrenia or autism, or bipolar disorders etc...

    it is doubtful we will have identified all the genes responsible for mental retardation, and mental illness over the next decade...before CRISPR can be utilized we first must find the genetic causes of these diseases, which we are very far from achieving today. The known genetic effects are not found to have a significant impact on IQ......hundreds of genes involved and most of the studies seem to involve higher IQ whites or Asians...have they found enough high IQ blacks to determine if they have a different set of genes effecting IQ ? What if the genes responsible for higher IQ Caucasians do not raise the IQ in Blacks ?

    Yes, most issues will involve multiple genetic controls, possibly epigenetic effects as well(Down Syndrome is a pretty dramatic example of this). Still, you fix what you can and move from there. IMHO if things such as Tay-Sachs and kernicterus get treated, we’re already making good progress.

    For some, it is indeed a single gene error that causes it. But yes, not the vast majority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Maciano
    Well, you're partly right. I was careless, since I wrote the response on my phone.

    Political attitudes are moderately heritable, and lefties get fewer children on average. Both statements are factually true.

    This isn't to say that lefties can't convert conservatives to leftism. It simply means that lefties tend to die off, while conservatives tend to leave more children.

    On the other hand, the heritability of leftism, at least as it expresses itself in today’s current political climate, may change in the future. We may soon (or at least someday) have a supercomputer/AI that can tell us, with certainty, that some individuals and/or races have inferior or superior mental abilities, personality profiles, et al. The current expression of leftism is built on accepting the religion of equality. How will this genotype/personality type react when it’s widely accepted that the core tenant of this faith (biological equality) is proven as false as the flat earth and “Big Book of Jewish Fairy Tales”?

    Also, you never no with children. My parents are still Marxists, I was a leftist up until mid-college, and my inherent inclination skews towards libertarianism (based on my readings of Haidt’s moral modules). However, because of my exposure to HBD I’ve become a right-wing, alt-right sympathizer, despite being Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Anon[288] • Disclaimer says:

    When the average male is revolted by the natural female body with unshaved pubes, no breast implants, no makeup, and with a few extra pounds, he’s not going to breed children. You have to be attracted to this type of woman to become a father multiple times. There’s no way to do it otherwise. This is the woman you’re going to see across your breakfast table if you marry her, because she’s the majority of all women.

    Of course, if you want a more interesting explanation, a lot of fertile women are on the pill. If a man’s hormones don’t detect a fertile woman, it may be that his libido crashes. It could be the mass use of the pill that’s killing male interest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    Certainly the widespread use of hormonal birth control has effected mating choices in America. females on the pill are less likely to marry masculine men than females who avoided taking hormones to fake pregnancy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Anon[288] • Disclaimer says:

    50 years ago it was 1968. Young women of that time were well-nourished but not fat. They grew their hair as long as they could get it, and long hair is a sexual attractor. The use of the pill was not very common in unmarried women at that time, so the average young women did not give off hormones signally infertility. It was also a positive era and fun-loving era, and young women were happier then than they are today. Many wanted nothing more than traditional marriages, which are nowhere near as stressful as raising kids while working a full-time job like today. Women today are more bad-tempered because they’re overworked and have more responsibilities. Also, back then young women were the majority of the female demographic.

    Of course the men went crazy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  206. Truth says:
    @manorchurch

    Like most cuckservatives, you are stunningly ignorant.
     
    But not ignorant of the language and the proper use thereof, dick. I am not a "cuckservative", asshole, because I am not a conservative, make no claim to conservative viewpoints, and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the "conservative" label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    You seem to have no idea how many ‘feminist’ laws are in direct violation of the US constitution, and are specifically designed to destroy families.
     
    If they violate the Constitution, it is the obligation of legislature and the courts to find it so. Don't preach to me about Constitutional provisions, you ignorant jackass.

    Your incel status is the reason you place women on pedestals.
     
    Got it, you hate women. How unusual -- never happens in your pack of limp-dick fools.

    and am in general of the opinion that most people laying claim to the “conservative” label are simply insufferable, small-minded little fucks who need a good ass-whipping.

    Go get you some, Thommy…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Factorize says:

    I am feeling the love and abundance of our universe.
    The transcendence of humanity is very near.
    Whether through IQ uplift or AI Singularity, our quest to touch infinity is close.
    It is such a high honor to be present to watch this transformation of our species to something magical.
    I have no doubt that the entire thread is with me on this one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. 5371 says:
    @5371
    The breakdown of births by race (TFR will come later) is there at the bottom of page 2 and in table 2 of the 2017 births report, and it shows how misleading is the "minorities hit hardest" spin.

    Blax, Hispos still have substantially higher TFR than whites, especially if you exclude from the latter those who are middle eastern or give girth from nonwhite fathers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    But whites are also the largest single group within the breakdown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Anon
    When the average male is revolted by the natural female body with unshaved pubes, no breast implants, no makeup, and with a few extra pounds, he's not going to breed children. You have to be attracted to this type of woman to become a father multiple times. There's no way to do it otherwise. This is the woman you're going to see across your breakfast table if you marry her, because she's the majority of all women.

    Of course, if you want a more interesting explanation, a lot of fertile women are on the pill. If a man's hormones don't detect a fertile woman, it may be that his libido crashes. It could be the mass use of the pill that's killing male interest.

    Certainly the widespread use of hormonal birth control has effected mating choices in America. females on the pill are less likely to marry masculine men than females who avoided taking hormones to fake pregnancy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. cornbeef says:
    @Anon
    And the babies will all be beautiful tall blonde and blue with medium slim builds big eyes and perfect features

    Check out the college newspaper ads for egg donation. All they want is 5’7 or more slim build natural blonde light brown hair and submit SAT scores.

    If you are a short chubby metizo they don’t want your eggs

    I donated sperm a few years ago and couldn’t believe how quickly my stuff “sold out.”

    California Cryobank was the company I used and they tend to end up with a lot of mystery meat jizz sitting around.

    https://cryobank.com/search/?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. MacNucc11 says:
    @5371
    Blax, Hispos still have substantially higher TFR than whites, especially if you exclude from the latter those who are middle eastern or give girth from nonwhite fathers.

    But whites are also the largest single group within the breakdown.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. m___ says:
    @VICB3
    I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the effects of crowding and the Behavioural Sink on reproduction:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

    Also:

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=the+mouse+crowding+experiment&oq=THE+MOUSE+CROWDING+EXPERI&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i160k1l2.1316.10256.0.13117.26.22.0.0.0.0.763.4987.0j1j7j4j2j0j1.15.0

    Hope this helps!

    Just a thought.

    VicB3

    I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the effects of crowding and the behavioural sink on suppressed reproduction:

    We touched upon it,

    On the psychological level, digital masturbation, corn-syrup and palm-oil must affect the potential to fertility, as does population density, living conditions. Vaguely, we used to call it quality of life.

    The interaction, the cause consequence relationships are dense, and invisible, but the throttle could well be population issues expressed. Genetic psychometrics will have probably more surprising effects on the non-issue of “collapse”. Attending the real problem, how to get to sustainable human population patterns that include all other factors of a healthy planet is the silent mention here.

    The article is a decoy, it plays the repeated trick of confusing the reader, and detract from the real issue. In the “classic” tradition of an insider joke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @RWS
    More demand, but no solution: immigrants from the Third World are net drains on society and government in both the United States and Great Britain, if not also in other Western nations, as in the aggregate they bring few skills to aid (let alone improve) the receiving states.

    More likely is that the welfare states of the West will collapse of their own weight.

    The competition will be for skilled First Worlders with brains, not developing world helots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Travis says:
    @Sin City Milla
    In 1914 Europeans were 25% of world population. Today 5%. The only endangered minority in the world today is whites.

    well stated

    100 years ago 50% of Americans had Blue eyes, while today less than 20% of white Americans have Blue eyes, another indication of the vanishing white race..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. RWS says:
    @manorchurch

    We agree (though I’d press for a lower goal, perhaps about three billions at most).
     
    Yeah, me too. Most people have no concept of population dynamics within an ecosystem. I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn't. Feet of clay, I guess.

    “I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn’t.”

    We’ve the same tendency. An ecologist uncle drilled me on the many horrors to result from over-population, however; and, as an historian, I early learned that the population of the Earth for most of recorded history might have totalled only about five hundred millions — yet we produced great art and science.

    All that an increasing population does is to sustain for awhile longer the ultimately impossible welfare state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    RWS, a near definitive example of the anti-developmental consequences of reducing effective population size is from Tasmania. When modern European explorers arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago, what they there was truly shocking. The most accurate description of Tasmanian society at that time would have been Paleolithic. They were the most anthropologically regressed human population anywhere on this planet. 200 years ago it would not have been necessary to imagine what life 10,000 years might have been like, you could have simply went to Tasmania to see for yourself.

    Over many thousands of years their technology base had eroded. They lost the ability to make fishing lines, boomerangs etc.. If their society had not been rescued it seems almost inevitable that they would have continued to regress perhaps eventually devolving into Homo erectus.

    How could this have possibly have happened? 12,000 years ago Bass Strait separated Tasmania and the mainland of Australia. When Tasmania became isolated from the mainland with a much smaller population base, vital skills were lost through time. It would have been probably quite difficult to be a netmaker, a boomerang maker or just about any other type of craftsman in such a small scale economy. Eventually nearly all the skill was lost in the community. While this might seem a quirk of history, it would be more accurate to recognize this as a repeating feature of human history; there are many other examples. None perhaps is more striking than the loss of the knowledge of concrete for nearly 1000 years until it reemerged in England in the 18th Century.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @5371
    The breakdown of births by race (TFR will come later) is there at the bottom of page 2 and in table 2 of the 2017 births report, and it shows how misleading is the "minorities hit hardest" spin.

    Yeah, but going from 2.8 to 2.1 in a decade is a big drop. Mexico is probably going in the direction of Brazil, Puerto Rico and New Mexico. Puerto Rico and New Mexico are Latino majority commonwealth and state, but they have some of the lowest birth rates in the US. I looked up the US Census for Anaheim and Santa Ana. In 2006, both cities had 9.7 percent and 10 percent of the populations under 5 now they have reduced to 7.2 and 7.8 percent. By 2030, Anaheim and Santa Ana will be barely higher than Mission Viejo in kids under 5 if the trend continues. Latinos outside of Texas and Florida tend to live in high cost of living states like California and New York which reduces your birth rates/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @RWS
    More demand, but no solution: immigrants from the Third World are net drains on society and government in both the United States and Great Britain, if not also in other Western nations, as in the aggregate they bring few skills to aid (let alone improve) the receiving states.

    More likely is that the welfare states of the West will collapse of their own weight.

    Many Latin American countries now have low birth rates like Chile and Brazil. Probably, Latin America will eventually follow Eastern Europe and having lower birth rates than the US because the living standards are not as high. Puerto Rico now is lower than the US at 10 kids per 1,000 versus 13 for the US. So, because Mexicans lived the most in high cost of living California there birth rates will drop faster than whites in the south.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Oldeguy
    Really do have to play the harrumphing old fogey on this one.
    The problem ( and I fully agree that's it's a very serious one indeed ) is not a decline in interest in sexual intercourse but rather a precipitous drop in the willingness to assume the duties and burdens of parenthood. The same thing has happened before over recorded history and is usually a sign of increased self absorption, decreased community morale and a society in its end stage.
    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant "hordes".

    The West is self extinguishing irrespective of any immigrant “hordes”.

    It’s not just the West. East Asian countries like Taiwan and South Korea have even lower fertility rates than the West.

    It’s every country that has been exposed to the cultural poisons spread by the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. dfordoom says: • Website
    @ChrisZ
    Achmed, I have a hypothesis that tattooing (at least as practiced today) is a form of self-mutilation. In earlier ages, various forms of mutilation--tearing out hair, clawing your skin, ripping clothes, e.g.--were associated with grief. Degrading your appearance, ruining your attractiveness either temporarily or permanently, was a way of expressing grief, dealing with it, or signaling to the public that you were under its sway. Maybe in this sense the tradition of wearing black for mourning was a low-grade form of self-mutilation, or a hedge against people resorting to more extreme forms of it. Similarly the strange dietary contagions that cycle through our culture--anorexia on the one hand, obesity on the other--may originate in some sort of grieving. Perhaps there's something biological about the connection between these kinds of physical distortions and deeplt negative emotional states.

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I've come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives--deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie--that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it's been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.

    In any case, as I grow older and more observant I’ve come to appreciate how many people carry a burden of grief in their lives–deep sorrow, disappointment, or a sense of anomie–that they are simply not equipped to deal with. Tattooing has become an approved way of distorting your body, and so perhaps it’s been adopted for this grieving purpose by the present generation. I may be wrong about this; but I can hardly look upon a person with significant tattos in their body without thinking that here is a deeply unhappy person.

    Or a deeply self-pitying self-indulgent person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Factorize says:

    When will the politics of demographic collapse reach American consciousness? Mexico will achieve sub-replacement fertility within the next 10 years, as will most of Central and South America. At what point will northward migrating people be welcomed and not excluded?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  221. Watching porn is probably a symptom, rather than a cause of declining sexual activity and family formation. Compared with the 1960s, when many western countries had near full employment, more young adults are living with their parents, more young people are under or unemployed, more young adults are in college doing extended degrees, and a lot more young people are in debt. Hence, the increase in frustrated young males falling back on the cheaper option of staying home and playing videos games or watching porn. It’s interesting that the developed countries with the lowest birth rates (such as Japan and Italy) also tend to be the countries with the highest percentage of young adults who are living with their parents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  222. @Truth

    I just don’t have enough money to raise a family... my dream is to travel the world, all the money I would save in the future will be for traveling in Europe and Asia
     
    'Bout says it all.

    One could of course replace, "travel" with "play video games", "buy weapons" "refubish old motorcycles" or whatever.

    Why is there no story about Tommy Robinson getting arrested by the Thought Police? #FreeTommy

    Please post a link to the petition at change.org:

    https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Randal says:
    @John Bushcroft
    >Note sure how it breaks down racially, but I believe the Black-White crime ratio has been pretty stable since Blacks were “freed” during the Civil Rights era.

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.

    Whites committed a far greater number of crimes in the 60s and 80s than they do today, another function of the number of young white people being higher in those days. The black-white crime disparity is largely a matter of black Americans being younger than white Americans due to a slower (until now) decline in fertility over the 20th century. People forgot about the days when whites were the most criminal.

    I get the impression you simply have no conception of the sheer scale of the hugely increased predilection for violent crime of black men in the US compared to non-black, nor its persistence over time. That’s hardly surprising given the active discouragement of any mention of it in the societies of the modern US sphere, but you can educate yourself by reading the seminal work on this very site:

    Race and Crime in America

    Unz includes figures going back to 1985 for the correlations between rates of homicide, robbery and violent crime, and racial populations in US cities, and if you are honest they will shock you. If you are not honest, you will resort to denial in order to keep your opinions within the bounds of what is acceptable received opinion in the aforementioned societies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Factorize says:
    @RWS
    "I reflexively compromise to accommodate those uninformed. I shouldn’t."

    We've the same tendency. An ecologist uncle drilled me on the many horrors to result from over-population, however; and, as an historian, I early learned that the population of the Earth for most of recorded history might have totalled only about five hundred millions -- yet we produced great art and science.

    All that an increasing population does is to sustain for awhile longer the ultimately impossible welfare state.

    RWS, a near definitive example of the anti-developmental consequences of reducing effective population size is from Tasmania. When modern European explorers arrived in Tasmania a few centuries ago, what they there was truly shocking. The most accurate description of Tasmanian society at that time would have been Paleolithic. They were the most anthropologically regressed human population anywhere on this planet. 200 years ago it would not have been necessary to imagine what life 10,000 years might have been like, you could have simply went to Tasmania to see for yourself.

    Over many thousands of years their technology base had eroded. They lost the ability to make fishing lines, boomerangs etc.. If their society had not been rescued it seems almost inevitable that they would have continued to regress perhaps eventually devolving into Homo erectus.

    How could this have possibly have happened? 12,000 years ago Bass Strait separated Tasmania and the mainland of Australia. When Tasmania became isolated from the mainland with a much smaller population base, vital skills were lost through time. It would have been probably quite difficult to be a netmaker, a boomerang maker or just about any other type of craftsman in such a small scale economy. Eventually nearly all the skill was lost in the community. While this might seem a quirk of history, it would be more accurate to recognize this as a repeating feature of human history; there are many other examples. None perhaps is more striking than the loss of the knowledge of concrete for nearly 1000 years until it reemerged in England in the 18th Century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All John Derbyshire Comments via RSS