The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Natural Selection May be Making Society More Unequal"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Phys.Org, a website that posts universities’ press releases about their professors’ research (not that that’s a bad thing: colleges employ talented journalists to make their researchers sound comprehensible, plus the college PR staffers check with the professors to see if they got it right before posting):

JULY 6, 2022

Natural selection may be making society more unequal
by University of East Anglia

Contemporary humans are still evolving, but natural selection favors those with lower earnings and poorer education—according to research from the University of East Anglia.

A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.

Meanwhile, natural selection is pushing against genes associated with high educational attainment, high earnings, a low risk of ADHD or major depressive disorder, and a low risk of coronary artery disease.

Lead researcher Prof. David Hugh-Jones, from UEA’s School of Economics, said: “Darwin’s theory of evolution stated that all species develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

“We wanted to find out more about which characteristics are selected for and against in contemporary humans, living in the U.K.”

The research team looked at data from more than 300,000 people in the U.K., taken from the U.K. Biobank—a long-term project investigating the respective contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure to the development of disease.

The study only looked at white people.

The team studied the participants’ polygenic scores—an estimate of a person’s genetic liability, predicting a person’s health, education, lifestyle or personality.

They looked at two generations of people living in the U.K., by using data on the participants’ number of siblings as well as their number of children.

David Hugh-Jones said: “We found that 23 out of 33 polygenic scores were significantly linked to a person having more or fewer children over their lifetime.

“Scores which correlated with lower earnings and education predicted having more children, meaning those scores are being selected for from an evolutionary perspective.

“Scores which correlated with higher earnings and education predicted having fewer children, meaning that they are being selected against.

“The effects were especially strong among people with less education and lower incomes, and among people not living with a partner. Among older mothers, effects were actually reversed—in this group, scores correlating with higher earnings were selected for.

One interesting question is whether the sharp dysgenic effect seen for the two measures of educational attainment compared to the modest dysgenic effect seen for cognitive ability is real or due to the more well-developed polygenic scores data (James J. Lee, et al) for educational attainment compared to cognitive ability. Lee has assembled three million genomes for which educational attainment (e.g., “some college”) has been checked off on a box. In contrast, actual IQ tests are rapidly accumulating, but they tend to come it at about 10,000 at a time due to massively expensive longitudinal studies, such as the ABCD. Maybe if we had the DNA of 3 million people for whom we had IQ scores, the dysgenic effect would be as steep?

Or it could be that educational attainment is a test of both cognitive ability and socialization and picks for meeker males?

It’s long been recognized that more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics.

On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

“We explain these patterns using the economic theory of fertility, which was first developed more than 60 years ago.

Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher. Thanks, Gary, that clears everything up!

… “Natural selection could be making society more unequal, by increasing the correlation between income and polygenic scores, including scores that predict health and educational outcomes.”

In any case, that seems pretty inevitable: natural selection making society more unequal.

 
Hide 148 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.

    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy’ know?

    I don’t think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    • Replies: @Joe Magarac
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I don’t think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population.
     
    It will mean more social inequality between the ruling class and the peasants.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.

    Speaking of movies, the 2018 film Capernaum is the Lebanese, non-comedic version of Idiocracy. It's the highest-grossing Arabic/ME film of all time but I don't see where Steve got around to reviewing it.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Corvinus

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Achmed E. Newman


    One particular movie comes to mind.
     
    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what's been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    , @interesting
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible"


    I was thinking that exact same thing. It's odd how I continually hear about how "disadvantaged groups" need to be at the front of the line for all manner of government programs which begs the question:

    If those groups are always at the front of the line for the new programs and giveaways how is it that they are "disadvantaged"??

    Replies: @Lurker

    , @Joe862
    @Achmed E. Newman

    People not having kids because they care more about having big careers are the irresponsible ones. People need to have kids so the population doesn't crash. The overall problem is a low, below replacement birth rate. People not having kids are the problem. Women who value career over motherhood are misguided and should be stigmatized.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Ben tillman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    100% correct.

    Replies: @Anon

  2. Natural selection, like all of nature, is irredeemably racist. Good thing they stuck to wypipos.

    The team studied the participants’ polygenic scores—an estimate of a person’s genetic liability, predicting a person’s health, education, lifestyle or personality.

    This team would be out of work fast in the USA for using language like that.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @HammerJack

    I was wondering how they got away with that.

    There was a chart with differences by sex; I think it confirmed all the Roissy/pre-Nazi Heartiste stereotypes but I don’t have the link.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @HammerJack


    This team would be out of work fast in the USA for using language like that.
     
    They get away with it because they are only sampling white people, "polygenic score" is sufficiently vague and indirect, and they use "educational attainment" instead of IQ. All good ways to sneak up sideways on genetic issues.

    One problem with Steve's post is that the charts are an absolute mess. The axes either aren't labelled or are cut off. You honestly can't tell what is being measured against what. If Steve actually read or understood the study, he should have taken a moment to fix the charts or explain them.
  3. It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism? In Nigeria there is not much of a welfare net but huge numbers of children. We have reached a general level of material abundance where it is simply difficult to die of disease, exposure or starvation no matter how poor you are. It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism?
     
    I didn't say inequality would increase with Socialism, Peter. I say stupidity and irresponsibility does. For Nigeria, it's all been built in from the get-go.

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.
     
    It's already cheap. You'd have to force it on them. I don't believe in that, other than for criminals or, better yet, anyone who uses the welfare system - see, there you go - solutions!)
    , @kaganovitch
    @Peter Akuleyev

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Socialism hasn't been tried hard enough. Now, there's an idea!

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Peter Akuleyev


    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.
     
    I have a suspicion that whether by design or opportunity, the marriage of virtual reality, artificial intelligence and lifelike sexbots will be the ruling class's preferred manner of disposing with excess low status males in somatic golden cages. The point where one can live in a virtual state of endless carnal pleasure, being the main character of the pornographic cinematic virtual universe which is in sensory terms "even better than the real thing" from sexual awakening through death will be difficult to resist, especially when augmented with free Mountain Dew flavored bug paste and artificial designer drugs which produce a general feeling of well-being.

    They'd be sort of like sophisticated versions of decoys that hunters use to coax all manner of game animals into a line of sight for a terminal shot. Doe decoys are often doused with real doe urine of does in heat, so bucks often find the prospect irresistible as they abandon all weariness and instinct for self-preservation.

    Replies: @Farenheit

    , @Mark G.
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism?
     
    America is not actually much less socialist. Working class Swedes receive more in government benefits than working class Americans but also pay more in taxes. The American income tax system is more progressive. In the U.S. the top ten percent pay 45% of income taxes while in Sweden it is 27%. An earlier Swedish government tried steeply progressive income taxes but it didn't work because people cut back on working to put themselves in a lower tax bracket, engaged in income tax evasion or left the country. Much of the money collected by the Swedish government comes from proportional payroll taxes, flat regional taxes and consumption taxes. It's the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor that is harmful because it creates disincentives to work hard and encourages laziness and sloth and there is not much more of that in Sweden than in the U.S.
  4. Everyone knew populations were unequal 3,000 years ago. The whole HBD schtick has been to act like they’d come up with something new. It was a good way to waste precious energy over the last few decades and keep any real dissent from undermining the Establishment.

    • Thanks: Coemgen
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Would be interesting to see fertility rates by degree of ethnocentrism. I'd highly suspect that more ethnocentric people have higher fertility rates.

    Colorblind civic nationalism is a genetic dead-end. Like feminism, it will die out as more ethnocentric and patriarchal groups out-breed them and/or overwhelm them with higher fertility rates and a more confident, robust culture.

    Replies: @SFG

  5. We have too much safety in our societies, so of course natural selection is failing.

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing. A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool, but they seem to have turned the children of those generations into mawkish skulls full of fragile mush.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @The Alarmist

    So edgy.

    As for you, Sailer:

    "more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics"

    Who's to say that "highly educated" women aren't dysgenic? Besides (probably) higher median IQs, what eugenic qualities do they tend to possess?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @kaganovitch
    @The Alarmist

    A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool

    Slaughtering the flower of your young men before they can reproduce does wonders for your gene pool? Who knew?

    Replies: @SFG, @The Anti-Gnostic

    , @Joe Stalin
    @The Alarmist


    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing.
     
    In the 1960s, it was standard fare for single mothers to bitch and moan about how their useless baby daddies weren't forking over child support. Do you hear that anymore? It's a direct line from your paycheck to the baby mommas today.

    Make the cosmopolitans sick with dread: repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and bring back mail order guns and USPS delivered ammo. Bring back TOBACCO advertising and make the professional whiners steam with rage over their how their non-stop attacks on your personal health choices was for naught.

    What's a busy buddy to do when they no longer have the power of government?

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Anon
    @The Alarmist

    The highest casualty rates in world war II were in elite units like the submariners and the Air Force. Real dumbasses were sent to rear area logistical support units.

    Replies: @Mark G.

  6. It’s the opposite, it’s artificial selection making it harder for “smarter” (really just better educated, and usually a bit wealthier) white people to have children.

    It’s planned, it has little do do with nature (except that the poor usually had more children than the so-called middle-class, but that’s mostly when people lived more in the country and needed the labor, also many more children died) or with Darwin’s equivocated theories.

    • Agree: Gamecock
    • Replies: @Gamecock
    @Dumbo

    Agreed. It's quite a leap for the authors to dismiss artificial selection.

    Working definition of natural selection excludes human intervention.

  7. How did the study isolate the effects of natural selection from the totality of effects from both natural selection and sexual selection?

    Nothing I see in the summary attempts to separate out those two effects on reproductive outcomes. Instead the outcomes are attributed only to natural selection.

  8. Natural Selection May be Making made Society More Unequal

    FIFY.

  9. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    I don’t think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population.

    It will mean more social inequality between the ruling class and the peasants.

  10. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship
    Everyone knew populations were unequal 3,000 years ago. The whole HBD schtick has been to act like they'd come up with something new. It was a good way to waste precious energy over the last few decades and keep any real dissent from undermining the Establishment.

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Would be interesting to see fertility rates by degree of ethnocentrism. I’d highly suspect that more ethnocentric people have higher fertility rates.

    Colorblind civic nationalism is a genetic dead-end. Like feminism, it will die out as more ethnocentric and patriarchal groups out-breed them and/or overwhelm them with higher fertility rates and a more confident, robust culture.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Right, but you can breed with anyone. I do think progressivism has the problems you describe since they are so hostile to the traditional gender binary. But colorblind civic nationalism works OK for the average guy who just wants to grill and the average lady who just wants a family. You do get these weird color continua with half Asians in the professional classes, Hispanics in the middle, getting darker as you go down, and half blacks on bottom.

    Steve has kids, no?

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

  11. @HammerJack
    Natural selection, like all of nature, is irredeemably racist. Good thing they stuck to wypipos.

    The team studied the participants’ polygenic scores—an estimate of a person’s genetic liability, predicting a person’s health, education, lifestyle or personality.
     
    This team would be out of work fast in the USA for using language like that.

    Replies: @SFG, @Hypnotoad666

    I was wondering how they got away with that.

    There was a chart with differences by sex; I think it confirmed all the Roissy/pre-Nazi Heartiste stereotypes but I don’t have the link.

  12. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    • Agree: The Alarmist
    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @The Anti-Gnostic


    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.
     
    Isn't the issue here that K-selection or r-selection are products of a species' relative fertility, but species which display either of the selection strategies mate over their entire window of fertility? Elephants are K-selection species with long gestation and high parental involvement, but cow elephants mate in the first season they come into estrus. They may have few offspring per pregnancy relative to rabbits, but they don't delay mating to become better at K-selection mating. In fact, cow elephants keep mating and having offspring throughout their fertility windows, they just have fewer per female and invest more in each than r-selected species.

    Human females have a somewhat short window of high fertility, but long gestation and high parental investment as the baseline, so they're naturally choosy. It's just that post women's liberation movement the high fertility window coincides with the woman's own resource gathering/fitness augmenting stage of life (which would theoretically increase investment in future children) where having children during this time is a liability to attaining things like advanced degrees and job promotions. Reliable contraception is obviously the keystone of this modern lifestyle. So I don't think that the modern way of doing things, at least for the upper classes, is K-selection so much as an elaborate form of masturbation during peak fertility, sometimes with frantic efforts at child-bearing at the close of the woman's fertility window. No K-selected species consciously waits until an abstract point in the future when a predicted period of abundance finally arrives to start having first offspring, with the result that females have below replacement fertility and many never have offspring. K-selection in the modern world would involve smart, fit women having children much younger than they do now, and many more of them, but foregoing social status markers in order to invest resources in each of them - it's not being so smart that you neglect to have offspring along the way.
    , @anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Interesting about Capernaum: I'd not heard of it, so thanks for the link. I'm torn between admiration for ME film-people having insight into poverty-stricken lives, and recognition that their culture is unlikely to ever solve the problem, merely export it to the West, which downgrades us, without upgrading them.

    On the subject of exports, I see the child star was exported to Norway. Somehow I doubt the news world has heard the last of him, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as whether that future news will be positive or negative.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zain_Al_Rafeea

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    , @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "K-selection vs. r-selection..."

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

  13. Or it could be that educational attainment is a test of both cognitive ability and socialization and picks for meeker males?

    It’s long been recognized that more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics.

    On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

    “We explain these patterns using the economic theory of fertility, which was first developed more than 60 years ago.

    Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher. Thanks, Gary, that clears everything up!

    People focus on total fertility but neglect generation time. People tend to wait to have children and settle down until they have their life settled. Dumber or more impulsive people who don’t tend to do well in the increasingly competitive and time-consuming world of higher education ‘reach their potential’ and start their full adult lives earlier and tend to think about marrying their partners and having children earlier. This has only become more problematic as degree inflation has taken hold. A masters becoming the equivalent of a good degree, a PhD become the equivalent of a masters etc.

    If one life script has people having say the same rough amount of children but one life script tends to produce the first children 5 to 8 years earlier then over time this has a huge impact. The total lifetime fertility is the same but the generation time is different.

    An interesting example of this in animals is with Mute Swans. Among Mute Swan bred for semi-domestication a mutation lead to cygnets not being born with their typical dark feathers. These are known as ‘immutabilis’ (Unchanging, they are born with adult looking feathers) and their lack of dark feathers during the typical age range of normal cygnets leads to their parents not having their nurturing instinct triggered once they get to full size and driving them off a year earlier than their peers. This also leads to them being perceived as a mature mate earlier and mating earlier. So an interesting trade-off leading to a faster life history. (In humans this can also be seen with black children often looking noticeably older than their white peers until very late in adolescence and the controversy over them being mistaken and treated as older)

    Many middle class and up but not rich families have life scripts of having your children in your earlier thirties now. Additionally they also believe that a higher standard of life is possible and within reach so the ones who’ve lived through the 2010s to today have kept off longer than in retrospect they should have because the higher standard of life didn’t materialise, in most countries it got worse. However culture has begun to adapt beyond just children living with parents longer but also in terms of full families living with parents in a way that didn’t exist the generation prior. (People also seem more open to having their parents live with them in old age than sending them to nursing homes)

    So you have increasing education inflation leading to higher degrees and opportunities being handled by the most k, most patient deferring, least impulsive least disagreeable cohorts with them waiting until they have finished their education process and gotten their first stable job before thinking of having children. (The increasing difficulty in having a stable job and of their appropriate opportunities being in the same city make this take even longer) But less educated peers reach that level sooner and sometimes even with higher income levels (Tradesmen often make more money but such jobs often don’t interest, aren’t in the life script or are perceived as too low status for the k-selected cohorts to pour into, contra modern economics people generally do what society tells them to do as a profession rather than fiendishly seek out greater money at every chance)

    Generally if young people aren’t settling down and having families it’s due to a maladaption or malcondition in society rather than the people whose instinct seldom changes.

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman, Pixo, Rob
    • Replies: @SFG
    @Altai

    Well said.

    Who was it who said, “You can’t expect young people to support capitalism in a society that keeps them from amassing any capital?”

    , @SWVirginian
    @Altai

    Demographic change can really kick in when we take one detail into consideration: the length of time between generations. The age at which women begin producing their children matters even if the number that they produce isn’t excessive.

    Take, for example, Woman A, who postpones children until she is 30 to pursue education and passes these cultural values on to her children. Then take Woman B, who begins bearing children when she ends her education at 18 - or earlier - and passes these cultural values on to her children. If we restrict the number of children per generation to 2 and the years between births to 2 – just to keep things equitable - we can then see some quick kicking demographics.

    The second generation isn’t too dramatic. By the time that Woman A has completed her family at 32, Woman B still has only her 2 children, born when she was 18 and 20.

    Then it starts to get interesting.

    By the time that Woman A first becomes a grandmother at 60, Woman B has 4 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. That makes 3 descendants for Woman A at age 60 and 14 for Woman B.

    Let’s assume that they both live into their early 80’s. By the time, she dies at 83, Woman A will have produced 2 children, who will have produced 4 grandchildren, making her descendants total 6 at her death.

    Meanwhile in this same 83 years, Woman B will have produced 2 children, 4 grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren, and 16 great-great-grandchildren for a total of 30 descendants.

    The difference between 6 and 30 is quite remarkable. Even more remarkable is the fact that the people in example A are far more likely to be net tax payers than those in example B. Needless to say, if you lower the age at which Woman B begins her childbearing even a couple of years and raise her number of children to 3 or 4, demographic change can kick in even more quickly.

    The culture of the immigrants we allow into the US can be very important in the type of society we cultivate.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  14. @The Alarmist
    We have too much safety in our societies, so of course natural selection is failing.

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing. A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool, but they seem to have turned the children of those generations into mawkish skulls full of fragile mush.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @kaganovitch, @Joe Stalin, @Anon

    So edgy.

    As for you, Sailer:

    “more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics”

    Who’s to say that “highly educated” women aren’t dysgenic? Besides (probably) higher median IQs, what eugenic qualities do they tend to possess?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @AndrewR

    Lower BMIs. Look at female MIT students vs women who live in Appalachian trailer parks.

    Also better parenting abilities. It's better to have an intensive parenting style than to neglect your kids and spend all your welfare money on drugs instead of food for kids.

  15. I read a while back that one of the many drivers of income inequality was “assortive mating”. (Think Bill Clinton and Obama)

    I always thought it would be humorous if a conservative type public speaker at a big ivy type graduation would bemoan income inequality, get the graduates, especially the girls, in a lather over this grave injustice, then drop the punchline that the most effective way to end this is for them to marry a “blue collar guy, especially if the blue collar guy is an immigrant, the more down trodden the better”

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Farenheit

    I'm surprised the authors didn't use the term assortive mating, as it's the first thing I thought of. For those who have never heard of the concept, it's the modern phenomena where high-income people marry each other, such as a doctor marrying another doctor, rather than a doctor marrying a nurse and having her stay at home to raise the family. The benefits of women in the workplace are mitigated if women insist on marrying someone who earns more than they do.

  16. @Dumbo
    It's the opposite, it's artificial selection making it harder for "smarter" (really just better educated, and usually a bit wealthier) white people to have children.

    It's planned, it has little do do with nature (except that the poor usually had more children than the so-called middle-class, but that's mostly when people lived more in the country and needed the labor, also many more children died) or with Darwin's equivocated theories.

    Replies: @Gamecock

    Agreed. It’s quite a leap for the authors to dismiss artificial selection.

    Working definition of natural selection excludes human intervention.

  17. @Altai

    Or it could be that educational attainment is a test of both cognitive ability and socialization and picks for meeker males?

    It’s long been recognized that more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics.

    On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

    “We explain these patterns using the economic theory of fertility, which was first developed more than 60 years ago.

    Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher. Thanks, Gary, that clears everything up!
     
    People focus on total fertility but neglect generation time. People tend to wait to have children and settle down until they have their life settled. Dumber or more impulsive people who don't tend to do well in the increasingly competitive and time-consuming world of higher education 'reach their potential' and start their full adult lives earlier and tend to think about marrying their partners and having children earlier. This has only become more problematic as degree inflation has taken hold. A masters becoming the equivalent of a good degree, a PhD become the equivalent of a masters etc.

    If one life script has people having say the same rough amount of children but one life script tends to produce the first children 5 to 8 years earlier then over time this has a huge impact. The total lifetime fertility is the same but the generation time is different.

    An interesting example of this in animals is with Mute Swans. Among Mute Swan bred for semi-domestication a mutation lead to cygnets not being born with their typical dark feathers. These are known as 'immutabilis' (Unchanging, they are born with adult looking feathers) and their lack of dark feathers during the typical age range of normal cygnets leads to their parents not having their nurturing instinct triggered once they get to full size and driving them off a year earlier than their peers. This also leads to them being perceived as a mature mate earlier and mating earlier. So an interesting trade-off leading to a faster life history. (In humans this can also be seen with black children often looking noticeably older than their white peers until very late in adolescence and the controversy over them being mistaken and treated as older)

    Many middle class and up but not rich families have life scripts of having your children in your earlier thirties now. Additionally they also believe that a higher standard of life is possible and within reach so the ones who've lived through the 2010s to today have kept off longer than in retrospect they should have because the higher standard of life didn't materialise, in most countries it got worse. However culture has begun to adapt beyond just children living with parents longer but also in terms of full families living with parents in a way that didn't exist the generation prior. (People also seem more open to having their parents live with them in old age than sending them to nursing homes)

    So you have increasing education inflation leading to higher degrees and opportunities being handled by the most k, most patient deferring, least impulsive least disagreeable cohorts with them waiting until they have finished their education process and gotten their first stable job before thinking of having children. (The increasing difficulty in having a stable job and of their appropriate opportunities being in the same city make this take even longer) But less educated peers reach that level sooner and sometimes even with higher income levels (Tradesmen often make more money but such jobs often don't interest, aren't in the life script or are perceived as too low status for the k-selected cohorts to pour into, contra modern economics people generally do what society tells them to do as a profession rather than fiendishly seek out greater money at every chance)

    Generally if young people aren't settling down and having families it's due to a maladaption or malcondition in society rather than the people whose instinct seldom changes.

    Replies: @SFG, @SWVirginian

    Well said.

    Who was it who said, “You can’t expect young people to support capitalism in a society that keeps them from amassing any capital?”

  18. The entirety of this research can be perfectly encapsulated by watching the opening epilogue scene from the movie ‘Idiocracy.’

    • Agree: Unladen Swallow
  19. I suppose the issue here is that the definition of “fitness” for humans has been radically altered quite recently in evolutionary terms and our instincts haven’t caught up. What would make one “fit” in a hunter-gatherer society is quite different than “fitness” in contemporary Western societies. You don’t need to be particularly big, strong, or athletic in order to be a well-compensated accountant today. But, all else being equal, women are still primarily attracted to the qualities which might make you a hunter-gatherer chieftain. The spread in resource abundance between a big and strong but low earning manual laborer and a noodle-armed, successful accountant probably scrambles women’s brains. It probably takes some degree of self-discipline and time preference for a woman to chose the accountant – the abstract notion of future resource abundance has to overcome the feelings that the laborer is “hot right now.” The welfare state probably blunts this for those on the lower end of the income scale – there’s not much of a premium for a guy who is not hot but has a steady if poorly compensated job versus a guy who is big and strong without a legitimate job and who is in legal trouble quite a lot. If the latter has sudden and extreme abundance through, for example, engaging in the illicit drug trade (future resource abundance is almost certainly impossible), women are going to make some really bad decisions when it comes to mate choice.

    In any event I suppose that humans are the only species with the present ability to domesticate ourselves, but it would take more active coercion to accomplish something meaningful in terms of orienting the human to his novel environment to which he is not fully well suited. A sort of Eloi/Morlock division seems the most likely based upon the way things are now, except the Eloi would have been selected for high IQ via serial assortative mating of high-credentialed elites, and the Morlocks wouldn’t have the cognitive ability to run any sort of mechanical infrastructure.

  20. Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher.

    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It’s not only feminist law, it’s the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.

    “The [Liberal] Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.”

    —not quite Ted

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Almost Missouri


    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It’s not only feminist law, it’s the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.
     

    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of "low status" for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed - "post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we've 'made it' and have purchased a trendy two bedroom condo in Brooklyn/Alexandria/Chicago etc." Underclass blacks and people who shop at WalMart have four and five children or more, and we ignore the former entirely but define our status as being distinct from the latter. Applebee's is a punchline partly because it is emblematic of suburban strip mall homogenized mediocrity, but also in large part because it is one of the few restaurants where children are really welcome (children find homogenized mediocre food palatable). This is perhaps the nadir of Charlton's "clever sillies" hypothesis - they're so clever and their identities so wed to irony and paradox that they're engaging in self-extinction as a means of intra-class status competition.

    Very high status people whose high status is firmly founded and not liable to disruption can have a large number of children without suffering a loss in status. It's viewed as quirky or eccentric, but it's definitely an exception to the general rule applied to anyone under that rarefied air.

    Replies: @martin_2

    , @SFG
    @Almost Missouri

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to (I am not calling myself ‘child free’ as it as insult to those people who do the risk and hard work of rearing the next generation).

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. ;)

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

  21. Women with less education aren’t necessarily dumber than women with more education. They are just more attractive, more agreeable, and have more maternal instincts.

    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven’t started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.

    Getting those women out of the gene pool is highly eugenic!

    • Disagree: TTSSYF
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Jubilee

    if that were the case, ugly, high IQ women would be present in hordes at elite universities.

    yet high IQ women and girls mostly go to elite universities at age 18-24, before they are too old for marriage/kids.

    Also, if it were the case, high IQ women with Caltech degrees would be the ones getting arrested the most for child abuse and child neglect. In reality, Caltech women fawn over their kids and obsess over the child's health, nutrition, education, emotional wellbeing, social climbing, and extracurriculars.

    Meanwhile low IQ trailer trash women screw random men in the trailer park, and neglect the kids. They spend all the welfare money on drugs while the kids go hungry. They don't bother to notice when the kids are hanging out with the drug dealer's kids.

    Replies: @Lurker

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Jubilee

    Your take would be relevant if it were the 70s or 80s.

    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men. You’re crazy to think the people of Wal-Mart are more attractive and agreeable than college grads. The obesity epidemic means that 90% of blue collar women and about 75% of blue collar men lose their looks after age 25 (men are somewhat more protected due to less sedentary jobs).

    Replies: @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Jubilee


    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven’t started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.
     
    Going to college is (or anyway, was) actually a good investment for a woman who wants to have a family. It's the perfect place to meet a man who may be able to support a family. In other words, a good place to get an "MRS Degree." The problem is that now almost 2/3 college students are women.
  22. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.

    Speaking of movies, the 2018 film Capernaum is the Lebanese, non-comedic version of Idiocracy. It's the highest-grossing Arabic/ME film of all time but I don't see where Steve got around to reviewing it.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Corvinus

    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.

    Isn’t the issue here that K-selection or r-selection are products of a species’ relative fertility, but species which display either of the selection strategies mate over their entire window of fertility? Elephants are K-selection species with long gestation and high parental involvement, but cow elephants mate in the first season they come into estrus. They may have few offspring per pregnancy relative to rabbits, but they don’t delay mating to become better at K-selection mating. In fact, cow elephants keep mating and having offspring throughout their fertility windows, they just have fewer per female and invest more in each than r-selected species.

    Human females have a somewhat short window of high fertility, but long gestation and high parental investment as the baseline, so they’re naturally choosy. It’s just that post women’s liberation movement the high fertility window coincides with the woman’s own resource gathering/fitness augmenting stage of life (which would theoretically increase investment in future children) where having children during this time is a liability to attaining things like advanced degrees and job promotions. Reliable contraception is obviously the keystone of this modern lifestyle. So I don’t think that the modern way of doing things, at least for the upper classes, is K-selection so much as an elaborate form of masturbation during peak fertility, sometimes with frantic efforts at child-bearing at the close of the woman’s fertility window. No K-selected species consciously waits until an abstract point in the future when a predicted period of abundance finally arrives to start having first offspring, with the result that females have below replacement fertility and many never have offspring. K-selection in the modern world would involve smart, fit women having children much younger than they do now, and many more of them, but foregoing social status markers in order to invest resources in each of them – it’s not being so smart that you neglect to have offspring along the way.

  23. @Peter Akuleyev
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism? In Nigeria there is not much of a welfare net but huge numbers of children. We have reached a general level of material abundance where it is simply difficult to die of disease, exposure or starvation no matter how poor you are. It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @kaganovitch, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mark G.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism?

    I didn’t say inequality would increase with Socialism, Peter. I say stupidity and irresponsibility does. For Nigeria, it’s all been built in from the get-go.

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    It’s already cheap. You’d have to force it on them. I don’t believe in that, other than for criminals or, better yet, anyone who uses the welfare system – see, there you go – solutions!)

  24. The traditional way to get rid of the polygenic undesirable is a good war. Someone should get Resident Biden working on that PDQ. He might need help from the likes of Pelosi.

    Peter Akuleyev’s claim that Nigeria doesn’t have much of a Welfare State ignores the fact that most of the population of Africa wouldn’t be alive if nor for the pathological altruism of the West.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Bill Jones


    The traditional way to get rid of the polygenic undesirable is a good war. Someone should get Resident Biden working on that PDQ. He might need help from the likes of Pelosi.
     
    Say, by picking a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, and by antagonizing the ChiComs over Taiwan? It seems Biden and Pelosi are all over this! But wait, Oops! Wrong kind war. To get rid of the polygenic undesirables, you don't want a missiles, ships, and nukes war, you want dindu Strafbataillonen facing off on the frozen steppe.

    OTOH, maybe a strategic nuclear exchange wouldn't be so bad, for the US at least ...

    Peter Akuleyev’s claim that Nigeria doesn’t have much of a Welfare State ignores the fact that most of the population of Africa wouldn’t be alive if nor for the pathological altruism of the West.
     
    Just so. Sub-Saharan Africa is part of the West's de facto global welfare state.

    Replies: @Pixo

  25. @Peter Akuleyev
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism? In Nigeria there is not much of a welfare net but huge numbers of children. We have reached a general level of material abundance where it is simply difficult to die of disease, exposure or starvation no matter how poor you are. It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @kaganovitch, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mark G.

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Socialism hasn’t been tried hard enough. Now, there’s an idea!

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @kaganovitch

    Socialism is not about giving people free consumer goods, it is handing them ownership of the means of production. We have now gotten so good at producing things we have made a large percentage of the population effectively surplus to requirements. Socialism’s only answer to that is to produce less efficiently, which is stupid. Unfortunately modern capitalism alsomfails to address this situation adequately because the market rewards selling to consumers. Therefore large businesses look at all these useless people with mouths to feed as sources of revenue and encourage governments to produce more of them - whether through immigration or traditional reproduction.

  26. @The Alarmist
    We have too much safety in our societies, so of course natural selection is failing.

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing. A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool, but they seem to have turned the children of those generations into mawkish skulls full of fragile mush.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @kaganovitch, @Joe Stalin, @Anon

    A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool

    Slaughtering the flower of your young men before they can reproduce does wonders for your gene pool? Who knew?

    • Replies: @SFG
    @kaganovitch

    You do wonder if that’s part of the reason the West has gotten so much less warlike over the years. Selection for draft dodgers?

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @kaganovitch

    Yeah it's hard for me to see how warfare is eugenic unlike liberal use of capital punishment.

  27. OT – this Guardian piece illustrates the ancient alpha/beta dichotomy and the more modern “sleep with guys and get a book out of it” phenomenon. Not to mention a nasty case of TDS.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/13/young-man-rebooted-sex-life-dating-app

    “The move home to London was preceded by Donald Trump being elected to office around the time my divorce was filed, around the time I turned 40. His disgust at middle-aged women, and the palpable loathing he and his wife exuded when pictured together, alchemised a feeling I’d been marinating: having been sexually active since the age of 16, I wanted to walk away from it all. On reaching an age when women have to contort themselves, physically and emotionally, to keep getting “chosen for the team”, it felt freeing to say, “I’m not playing.” Don’t you dare judge me for my bikini body – just let me be the ocean.

    So, from the moment Trump was inaugurated, I’d stopped having sex and kissing and holding hands, and swore not to relent until he was gone. ”

    Did she feel bad that, at least in the mythos of his enemies, Donald Trump would no longer find her attractive?

    [MORE]

    A friend told me I had been on the wrong dating app. I let her sign me up to hers and connected with I guess who I was meant to connect with algorithmically: a divorced dad in his 50s. He was successful, well dressed, had all of his own hair and teeth. I was furious about having to go and meet him. The night before we met, he’d sent a long letter about how he’d ordered my memoir and read it in one go, and all the ways it had moved him. Just because I’d published a memoir didn’t mean I wanted people to read it before a first date. On meeting him in the park, I was not bored or awkward and I accepted he was, on paper, a good match. I agreed to a second date. But the idea of having sex with him made me cry for the entire cab ride home.

    He bought her book, read it all the way through, and gave her positive feedback. What a loser!

    This is the way to do it:

    We wrote back and forth, and it was easy. I’ll call him “Q” as he was a clever, fussy Englishman as opposed to Bond suave. Q made me smile and sometimes laugh. I liked his profile picture a lot, in which he grinned beside a stabled horse. I enjoyed talking to him enough that I mentioned him to Ben, who studied the profile picture and approved.

    “Clever boy: he’s telling the world he’s got a big cock.”

    “He is not saying that! He’s telling the world that he likes animals.”

    “No,” said my ex-husband, in the same decisive tone he’d use as he handed a bewildered grocery store worker an orange he considered overripe.

    But there’s a snake in every paradise:

    One morning, we woke in a hotel room overlooking a charming garden, watching the rain like cats. I felt quite calm. The Covid vaccine rollout had finally reached Q’s age group.

    He sighed. “In the first lockdown, every girl I’d ever dated wanted phone sex and to send me nudes. It was overwhelming. I could have opened a gallery. I wouldn’t – that would be revenge porn. But I eventually stopped looking. I had sex with so many women at the start of the pandemic, it’s like the Band Aid song: I couldn’t tell you who did which part.”

    I could recoil at his sangfroid all I liked, but that did not undo last night’s multiple orgasm. Internally, I recoiled. I knew who sang each line of that song. Of course – this was generational. What was new frontier for a woman in her 40s was yesterday’s repetitive news to a man in his 20s.

    I wonder where her daughter’s staying meanwhile?

    I felt very sad once I accepted that I was falling in love with Q and that he was not particularly available to me. So I did what men often do when they’re overwhelmed by the feeling of being blown away by a woman. They have a one-night stand with someone new.

    That’s right. Because all the men who are visible to her – the kind of guys who lose count of their women – can do that whenever they wish – just as she can.

    “This is an edited extract from Busy Being Free by Emma Forrest (Orion Publishing Co, £18.99)”

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @YetAnotherAnon

    As Wikipedia helpfully informs us:
    "She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder."

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @duncsbaby

  28. @Almost Missouri

    Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher.
     
    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It's not only feminist law, it's the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.

    "The [Liberal] Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."

    —not quite Ted

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @SFG

    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It’s not only feminist law, it’s the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.

    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’ and have purchased a trendy two bedroom condo in Brooklyn/Alexandria/Chicago etc.” Underclass blacks and people who shop at WalMart have four and five children or more, and we ignore the former entirely but define our status as being distinct from the latter. Applebee’s is a punchline partly because it is emblematic of suburban strip mall homogenized mediocrity, but also in large part because it is one of the few restaurants where children are really welcome (children find homogenized mediocre food palatable). This is perhaps the nadir of Charlton’s “clever sillies” hypothesis – they’re so clever and their identities so wed to irony and paradox that they’re engaging in self-extinction as a means of intra-class status competition.

    Very high status people whose high status is firmly founded and not liable to disruption can have a large number of children without suffering a loss in status. It’s viewed as quirky or eccentric, but it’s definitely an exception to the general rule applied to anyone under that rarefied air.

    • Replies: @martin_2
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’...
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people - both sexes - for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with "status" when it comes to having kids.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

  29. In any case, that seems pretty inevitable: natural selection making society more unequal.

    So inevitable that the inequalities will compound and self-reinforce until the inequalities become …

    … races.

  30. “It looks like natural selection could actually apply to humans and possibly even groups of humans”

    That’s some really impressive work.

    In 10 more years they might even discover that race is more than painty colors.

    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
  31. anon[216] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.

    Speaking of movies, the 2018 film Capernaum is the Lebanese, non-comedic version of Idiocracy. It's the highest-grossing Arabic/ME film of all time but I don't see where Steve got around to reviewing it.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Corvinus

    Interesting about Capernaum: I’d not heard of it, so thanks for the link. I’m torn between admiration for ME film-people having insight into poverty-stricken lives, and recognition that their culture is unlikely to ever solve the problem, merely export it to the West, which downgrades us, without upgrading them.

    On the subject of exports, I see the child star was exported to Norway. Somehow I doubt the news world has heard the last of him, but I wouldn’t hazard a guess as whether that future news will be positive or negative.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zain_Al_Rafeea

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @anon

    I wish Zain and everyone involved the very best but yes, Lebanon needs to grow up and become a real country instead of exporting Lebanon everywhere else. The country is sectarian and nobody is really a Lebanese nationalist other than the Christians.

    BTW, my impression from visiting there was the Druze were a pretty cool, Zoroastrian-type, nationalist group. Then when I got back home and told a Lebanese Christian friend about it he said he left during the1980s because the Druze militias in his area had started targeting Christians.

    Marriage is big business in Lebanon. We were repeatedly routed around village centers by young guys not so subtly packing weapons due to wedding celebrations (average age 29 years). Lebanon unlike much of the West has a lot of future ahead of it and their young people seem to favor good food and good times over internecine warfare so we'll see. The Lebanese elite need to be slaughtered in their beds.

  32. So Keith Joseph got it right in 1974:

    “A high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world … Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness … They are producing problem children … The balance of our human stock, is threatened.“

  33. @kaganovitch
    @The Alarmist

    A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool

    Slaughtering the flower of your young men before they can reproduce does wonders for your gene pool? Who knew?

    Replies: @SFG, @The Anti-Gnostic

    You do wonder if that’s part of the reason the West has gotten so much less warlike over the years. Selection for draft dodgers?

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @SFG


    You do wonder if that’s part of the reason the West has gotten so much less warlike over the years. Selection for draft dodgers?
     
    Is this true? My thought is that the post-nationalist period has just changed the way that we engage in wars. Certainly the two industrial scale wars in the last century sated the appetite for big wars in the West, and so we've entered a period of conducting smaller scale wars wrapped in gauzy liberal justifications like "bringing democracy to [insert people who don't want democracy]" where we immediately declare the results of elections "not democracy" if the result doesn't square with the West's current bizarre cultural norms. My guess is that the hagiography of the Allies in WWII fighting against NAZIism together with the Cold War spawned an era in which wars must be justified in such ideological, self-aggrandizing terms. This was probably bolstered by the fact that at least in the U.S. most of the boomers who came to power and all of the boomer Presidents had shirked their responsibilities in Vietnam (Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden) with various self-serving justifications. You probably need to appeal to humanitarian ends when waging wars if you avoided war yourself on humanitarian pretexts. "I wasn't a coward, I'm just principled: Vietnam was a bad war, Iraq is a good war where we will help women go to school!" This feint also helps defense contractors - we need twenty plus years of smart bombs dropped on mud huts to keep girls going to school. Once we stop dropping bombs costing hundreds of thousands a piece on mud huts (which are rebuilt in a week), the girls won't be able to go to school!

    Also, compulsory conscription doesn't select for warriors, and lots of men died in the prior World Wars who were not really in direct infantry combat where you would have the opportunity to display physical courage (i.e., you're drafted into the Navy, work in the engine room of a battleship and it gets sunk). Famously, Joe Kennedy Jr. died in war, and John Kennedy had his PT boat sunk - so any such "selection" pressure for cowardice would have probably begun post WWII with the offspring of the boomers (where boomers were the children of those who served in WWII).

  34. Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women. For example, Condi Rice, who obtained her BA at 19, is an only child and has no children. The other inaugural woman at Augusta National is Darla Moore, a self-made high-finance billionairess. She has one child and looks like a pretty 1980s actress.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Pixo

    Of course, a billionaire can probably pay for very good plastic surgery…

    , @AnotherDad
    @Pixo


    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women.
     

    Thanks Pixo. This is exactly what I've seen in the data again and again and again.

    The negative IQ selection is close to 100% (maybe 90%) driven by women and through educational attainment.

    Smart men's fertility is "dragged down" by their tendency to marry smart educated women (often with only a brief fertility window left). But higher IQ men's own superior achievement and capability is fertility positive--i.e. they are more attractive to women and better at talking to and appealling to women--and eugenic. The result of these two effects is a fairly flat fertility/IQ distribution for men.

    And yeah, this really pummels black women. They want white-picket-fence families. But black men are poor at providing that. And educated black men are fewer in number and have the outside-the-race-option. The result is a lot of childless educated black women, while their "sistas" in the hood are getting knocked up by the players--driving a consistent disgenic trend in American blacks. This is somewhat offset by the inflow of white genes. But the white women submitting to this are not in general top of the line.

    ~~

    Summary from the data i've seen:
    Educational attainment off the table (held steady), IQ is probably neutral or even slightly fertility positive.
    Women's educational attainment off the table (held steady), male IQ is mildly fertility positive.

    The essence of the issue is smart women tend to stay in school a long time, then want to have "careers" and end up really constricting their marriage-and-successful-child-bearing window. And smart men get sucked down with them.

    Replies: @Anon, @Pixo

  35. @Almost Missouri

    Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher.
     
    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It's not only feminist law, it's the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.

    "The [Liberal] Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."

    —not quite Ted

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @SFG

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to (I am not calling myself ‘child free’ as it as insult to those people who do the risk and hard work of rearing the next generation).

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. 😉

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @SFG

    Lol.


    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around
     
    Quarter Jewish = Jewish Castizos = Jewstizos?

    Or would they be Jewyotes?

    HBD is hard.
    , @Almost Missouri
    @SFG


    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to
     
    I suspect it was also a major reason that my brother snipped his vas deferens, though I never asked him specifically.

    From a society-wide point of view, it is a profound failure that high-IQ high-income men are literally cutting their own reproductive organs rather than face the [anti-]Family Courts.

    Whatever the perversities and degeneracies of the Ancients were that we love to roll our eyes at, they pale in comparison to perversities and degeneracies that modern liberalism has cooked up for us.

    And before anyone comes in with "BuT tHe INTENSHUNS wErE gOOOd!!1!", I've got a road to hell for you to continue paving.
    , @AnotherDad
    @SFG


    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. 😉
     
    Quarter Jews sound great. Jewish genes should have been mixed in from the get go. Jews should never have been allowed to exist as a separate tribe in the West. It's a general rule: separate tribes just cause trouble.

    But if you want to keep it at "half", I can send you my niece's email ('bout time for her to get serious about such matters).

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)
     
    And a babe. Considering Miller--terrific guy--is not exactly the most handsome Jewish dude ... he scored on all counts.

    The great thing is the Internet has opened up an endless supply of options.

    My suggestion, leap in. Don't settle until you've found one who is both compatible and "based" and really wants to be a wife and mother to your children--not just have a "relationship" for her facebook/instagram profile and her "special day". But the risks--drama and divorce rape--are far outweighed by the joy you'll take in having little SFGlets snuggling up to you for storytime, learning from you and later making their way in the world to carry on after you.

    Let you fish swim free!

    Replies: @SFG

  36. @Pixo
    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women. For example, Condi Rice, who obtained her BA at 19, is an only child and has no children. The other inaugural woman at Augusta National is Darla Moore, a self-made high-finance billionairess. She has one child and looks like a pretty 1980s actress.

    https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/53/d53b60a0-9723-11eb-9987-23c80aadb755/606e13e15ead2.image.jpg

    Replies: @SFG, @AnotherDad

    Of course, a billionaire can probably pay for very good plastic surgery…

  37. people with more lifetime sexual partners

    Calling Roissy! Even “childless” pump-and-dump cads might have a smart evolutionary strategy after all:

    https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1557988926039552000

    • Thanks: Hangnail Hans
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Be careful what you're wishing for with studies like this one.

    First of all, this has nothing to do with Roissy and "pumping and dumping." Microchimerism is irrelevant to the germ line.

    But secondly---and much more importantly---this has the result of invalidating every other genetic study ever done. I have written about this several times before on this site. Microchimerism is not at all uncommon. Geneticists like to pull gnat shit out of pepper with nonsense like polygenetic scores and barely observable correlations, yet the real-life organisms on the planet are walking around with multiple different genomes in "their" bodies.

    It's time to wake up. Biomolecular genetics is pseudoscience.

    , @SFG
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This is a second order effect and you know it. The evolutionary advantages to being a cad are so huge the small fraction to use birth control don’t affect it much. I’m convinced it’s the reason bipolar disorder hangs around.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    How many years before the children of Southeast Asia begin evincing curiously Caucasian phenotypes?

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    , @Pixo
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    “ Thanks to horizontal gene transfer if you cum in 50 bitches then you have one child on the block chain”

    Wrong by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude even if you consider some random cells in a woman 1/50 of a son.

    80% of women had zero detected male cells. The main source for the minority that do is an aborted male fetus. Only 10% of women with no known male children or fetuses had male cells.

  38. OT… For Catholics and most other historical Christians:

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I linked elsewhere to a lovely service from a packed Ukrainian Catholic church, which I found and stayed with while looking for live webcams near the front lines. Instead I found living faith.

    (It is over 2 hours though, I joined more than half way through.)

    https://youtu.be/ufUiLhU_YhY

    Say a prayer for General Samsonov and his fallen men, too, immortalised in Solzhenitsyn's August 1914, and for whom the day of the Assumption was a day of destiny.


    Samsonov attempted to retreat, but with his army now trapped in a German encirclement, the German forces killed or captured most of his troops. Only 10,000 of the 150,000 Russian soldiers managed to escape the encirclement. At least 92,000 Russian troops were taken prisoner, and between 300 and 500 Russian guns had been captured, out of the Second Army's initial total of some 600. Over 30,000 Russian soldiers were estimated dead or missing.

    Samsonov and a small group of staff officers and men attempted to escape the encirclement, at first on horseback, and then on foot, over swampy ground, in the darkness of the night of August 29. Samsonov repeatedly was heard to say "The Czar trusted me. How can I face him after such a disaster?" They reached the town of Willenberg late at night, but found it was held by the Germans. At approximately 1 a.m. on August 30, Samsonov slipped away from his party into the forest. A shot rang out. The Russians were not able to find his body in the darkness, but were eventually able to make their way to safety.
     

  39. J says: • Website

    Why are we always ruminating and chewing the same cud? Two thousand years ago the Romans already had a world for it: the “proletariat”, that is the people that has children (“prole” in Latin), those who are reproducing. In Rome it was the lowest social and economic class of the community, just like in our contemporary society. It was not considered a serious problem in Rome , except for the rapid die-off the senatorial families, which left the country basically leaderless.

  40. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    people with more lifetime sexual partners
     
    Calling Roissy! Even “childless” pump-and-dump cads might have a smart evolutionary strategy after all:

    https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1557988926039552000

    https://twitter.com/Lupus_Raptor/status/1557976869361881089

    https://twitter.com/MDOrphevs/status/1558592472762261506

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @SFG, @Almost Missouri, @Pixo

    Be careful what you’re wishing for with studies like this one.

    First of all, this has nothing to do with Roissy and “pumping and dumping.” Microchimerism is irrelevant to the germ line.

    But secondly—and much more importantly—this has the result of invalidating every other genetic study ever done. I have written about this several times before on this site. Microchimerism is not at all uncommon. Geneticists like to pull gnat shit out of pepper with nonsense like polygenetic scores and barely observable correlations, yet the real-life organisms on the planet are walking around with multiple different genomes in “their” bodies.

    It’s time to wake up. Biomolecular genetics is pseudoscience.

  41. @The Alarmist
    We have too much safety in our societies, so of course natural selection is failing.

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing. A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool, but they seem to have turned the children of those generations into mawkish skulls full of fragile mush.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @kaganovitch, @Joe Stalin, @Anon

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing.

    In the 1960s, it was standard fare for single mothers to bitch and moan about how their useless baby daddies weren’t forking over child support. Do you hear that anymore? It’s a direct line from your paycheck to the baby mommas today.

    Make the cosmopolitans sick with dread: repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and bring back mail order guns and USPS delivered ammo. Bring back TOBACCO advertising and make the professional whiners steam with rage over their how their non-stop attacks on your personal health choices was for naught.

    What’s a busy buddy to do when they no longer have the power of government?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Joe Stalin

    Don't forget legalizing drunk driving. And free fentanyl too. Stick it to the man with self destructive behavior. Yeah!

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  42. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

    This would be your hardworking, successful general contractor types and other tradesmen that started and grew their businesses. These guys would not be marrying smart college-educated women.

  43. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    K-selection vs. r-selection. Presently, r-selection seems to be winning.

    Speaking of movies, the 2018 film Capernaum is the Lebanese, non-comedic version of Idiocracy. It's the highest-grossing Arabic/ME film of all time but I don't see where Steve got around to reviewing it.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home), @anon, @Corvinus

    “K-selection vs. r-selection…”

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Corvinus


    “K-selection vs. r-selection…”

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/
     
    Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change.

    The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition -- I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly.

    Of course the selective pressure is always dependent on the environment. If the environment changes, the optimal strategy changes, and the selection pressure changes accordingly. When the environment favors K selection strategy, those genes will be favored and vice versa. That doesn't create any problem for the R vs. K dichotomy.

    The issue isn't whether the R vs. K strategy dichotomy is "true" or not (it's true by definition). But only whether it's a useful lens for examining the process of evolution. And it obviously is.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  44. @SFG
    @Almost Missouri

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to (I am not calling myself ‘child free’ as it as insult to those people who do the risk and hard work of rearing the next generation).

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. ;)

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    Lol.

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around

    Quarter Jewish = Jewish Castizos = Jewstizos?

    Or would they be Jewyotes?

    HBD is hard.

  45. In my experience with women, they find being in a relationship with a man that has less money than them intolerable, and they disdain spending more on the man than he spends on her. They’d rather be single and childless. Of course there’s exceptions.

  46. @kaganovitch
    @The Alarmist

    A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool

    Slaughtering the flower of your young men before they can reproduce does wonders for your gene pool? Who knew?

    Replies: @SFG, @The Anti-Gnostic

    Yeah it’s hard for me to see how warfare is eugenic unlike liberal use of capital punishment.

  47. “Natural Selection May be Making Society More Unequal”

    The title should instead be: “Socialist Policies are Making Society More Unequal.”

    The push for “equity” is deliberately pushing society toward Idiocracy.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Joseph Doaks

    True. The irony seems to have gone unnoticed. But I have a feeling that the left - consciously or otherwise - wants a society that is genetically unequal but with economic equality forced upon it. Or, if not equality, at least a situation where a lot of wealth is transferred from the productive to the non-productive. A nation where everyone is middle class, or at least prosperous, holds no appeal for them.

  48. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    people with more lifetime sexual partners
     
    Calling Roissy! Even “childless” pump-and-dump cads might have a smart evolutionary strategy after all:

    https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1557988926039552000

    https://twitter.com/Lupus_Raptor/status/1557976869361881089

    https://twitter.com/MDOrphevs/status/1558592472762261506

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @SFG, @Almost Missouri, @Pixo

    This is a second order effect and you know it. The evolutionary advantages to being a cad are so huge the small fraction to use birth control don’t affect it much. I’m convinced it’s the reason bipolar disorder hangs around.

  49. @SFG
    @kaganovitch

    You do wonder if that’s part of the reason the West has gotten so much less warlike over the years. Selection for draft dodgers?

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    You do wonder if that’s part of the reason the West has gotten so much less warlike over the years. Selection for draft dodgers?

    Is this true? My thought is that the post-nationalist period has just changed the way that we engage in wars. Certainly the two industrial scale wars in the last century sated the appetite for big wars in the West, and so we’ve entered a period of conducting smaller scale wars wrapped in gauzy liberal justifications like “bringing democracy to [insert people who don’t want democracy]” where we immediately declare the results of elections “not democracy” if the result doesn’t square with the West’s current bizarre cultural norms. My guess is that the hagiography of the Allies in WWII fighting against NAZIism together with the Cold War spawned an era in which wars must be justified in such ideological, self-aggrandizing terms. This was probably bolstered by the fact that at least in the U.S. most of the boomers who came to power and all of the boomer Presidents had shirked their responsibilities in Vietnam (Clinton, Bush, Trump, Biden) with various self-serving justifications. You probably need to appeal to humanitarian ends when waging wars if you avoided war yourself on humanitarian pretexts. “I wasn’t a coward, I’m just principled: Vietnam was a bad war, Iraq is a good war where we will help women go to school!” This feint also helps defense contractors – we need twenty plus years of smart bombs dropped on mud huts to keep girls going to school. Once we stop dropping bombs costing hundreds of thousands a piece on mud huts (which are rebuilt in a week), the girls won’t be able to go to school!

    Also, compulsory conscription doesn’t select for warriors, and lots of men died in the prior World Wars who were not really in direct infantry combat where you would have the opportunity to display physical courage (i.e., you’re drafted into the Navy, work in the engine room of a battleship and it gets sunk). Famously, Joe Kennedy Jr. died in war, and John Kennedy had his PT boat sunk – so any such “selection” pressure for cowardice would have probably begun post WWII with the offspring of the boomers (where boomers were the children of those who served in WWII).

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
  50. @Peter Akuleyev
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism? In Nigeria there is not much of a welfare net but huge numbers of children. We have reached a general level of material abundance where it is simply difficult to die of disease, exposure or starvation no matter how poor you are. It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @kaganovitch, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mark G.

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    I have a suspicion that whether by design or opportunity, the marriage of virtual reality, artificial intelligence and lifelike sexbots will be the ruling class’s preferred manner of disposing with excess low status males in somatic golden cages. The point where one can live in a virtual state of endless carnal pleasure, being the main character of the pornographic cinematic virtual universe which is in sensory terms “even better than the real thing” from sexual awakening through death will be difficult to resist, especially when augmented with free Mountain Dew flavored bug paste and artificial designer drugs which produce a general feeling of well-being.

    They’d be sort of like sophisticated versions of decoys that hunters use to coax all manner of game animals into a line of sight for a terminal shot. Doe decoys are often doused with real doe urine of does in heat, so bucks often find the prospect irresistible as they abandon all weariness and instinct for self-preservation.

    • Replies: @Farenheit
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    I've coined a phrase for the world you just described:

    Digital Valhalla (tm)

  51. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    people with more lifetime sexual partners
     
    Calling Roissy! Even “childless” pump-and-dump cads might have a smart evolutionary strategy after all:

    https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1557988926039552000

    https://twitter.com/Lupus_Raptor/status/1557976869361881089

    https://twitter.com/MDOrphevs/status/1558592472762261506

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @SFG, @Almost Missouri, @Pixo

    How many years before the children of Southeast Asia begin evincing curiously Caucasian phenotypes?

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Almost Missouri

    “Demo Dick” LRRPed some LBFMs

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/john-madden-rip/#comment-5087862

    https://i.redd.it/3ezegg51hn061.jpg

  52. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    One particular movie comes to mind.

    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what’s been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Hypnotoad666



    One particular movie comes to mind.

     

    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what’s been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.
     
    Idiocracy somehow escaped the prohibition on understanding that intelligence is heritable by veiling it as part of the film's premise lightly, but it's something that normal people understand and experience so everyone got it instantly. The only plausible deniability in the film is that the future society is so willfully stupid that one could assume that people became so stupid because their ancestors were born into households in which people just didn't read books for reasons of character I suppose.

    Replies: @Rob McX

  53. @Almost Missouri
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    How many years before the children of Southeast Asia begin evincing curiously Caucasian phenotypes?

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  54. I’ve literally seen that movie.

  55. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    people with more lifetime sexual partners
     
    Calling Roissy! Even “childless” pump-and-dump cads might have a smart evolutionary strategy after all:

    https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1557988926039552000

    https://twitter.com/Lupus_Raptor/status/1557976869361881089

    https://twitter.com/MDOrphevs/status/1558592472762261506

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @SFG, @Almost Missouri, @Pixo

    “ Thanks to horizontal gene transfer if you cum in 50 bitches then you have one child on the block chain”

    Wrong by 3 or 4 orders of magnitude even if you consider some random cells in a woman 1/50 of a son.

    80% of women had zero detected male cells. The main source for the minority that do is an aborted male fetus. Only 10% of women with no known male children or fetuses had male cells.

  56. @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    "K-selection vs. r-selection..."

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    “K-selection vs. r-selection…”

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/

    Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change.

    The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition — I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly.

    Of course the selective pressure is always dependent on the environment. If the environment changes, the optimal strategy changes, and the selection pressure changes accordingly. When the environment favors K selection strategy, those genes will be favored and vice versa. That doesn’t create any problem for the R vs. K dichotomy.

    The issue isn’t whether the R vs. K strategy dichotomy is “true” or not (it’s true by definition). But only whether it’s a useful lens for examining the process of evolution. And it obviously is.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Hypnotoad666

    "Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change"

    Staying something is silly does not make it so. What specifically do you disagree with the source? Why? Furthermore, when there are competing definitions, there is the likelihood of subjective application when offering conclusions to a study.

    "The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition — I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly."

    It is how the theory is applied, not necessarily the theory itself.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  57. @SFG
    @Almost Missouri

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to (I am not calling myself ‘child free’ as it as insult to those people who do the risk and hard work of rearing the next generation).

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. ;)

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to

    I suspect it was also a major reason that my brother snipped his vas deferens, though I never asked him specifically.

    From a society-wide point of view, it is a profound failure that high-IQ high-income men are literally cutting their own reproductive organs rather than face the [anti-]Family Courts.

    Whatever the perversities and degeneracies of the Ancients were that we love to roll our eyes at, they pale in comparison to perversities and degeneracies that modern liberalism has cooked up for us.

    And before anyone comes in with “BuT tHe INTENSHUNS wErE gOOOd!!1!”, I’ve got a road to hell for you to continue paving.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  58. In any case, that seems pretty inevitable: natural selection making society more unequal.

    Less specifically unequal–more just dumber, less conscientious, less capable.

  59. @Joseph Doaks
    "Natural Selection May be Making Society More Unequal"

    The title should instead be: "Socialist Policies are Making Society More Unequal."

    The push for "equity" is deliberately pushing society toward Idiocracy.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    True. The irony seems to have gone unnoticed. But I have a feeling that the left – consciously or otherwise – wants a society that is genetically unequal but with economic equality forced upon it. Or, if not equality, at least a situation where a lot of wealth is transferred from the productive to the non-productive. A nation where everyone is middle class, or at least prosperous, holds no appeal for them.

    • Agree: Kylie
  60. It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    This is not the main cause.

    My take on the causality, in rough order: (Obviously these strands intertwine and overlap.)

    — Modernity
    Abundant cheap food, clean water, sewage treatment, antibiotics, vaccines, decent housing etc. etc. have dramatically reduced the old natural selection. Leaving the farm, urban life, entertainment options, vacations, college costs have changed the children cost/benefit and birth control has made that easy for the even mildly conscientious.
    In sum: It’s no problem to have kids that survive, but it’s a choice.

    — Feminism/female careerism
    Delayed marriage–wiping out prime years of fertility. Negative attitudes toward marriage and child bearing. Higher bar for male provision.

    — Immigration
    Immigration driven destruction of male incomes, increased expenses for housing (with good schools) and taxation. Plus destruction of national cohesion and the notion of being part of a nation that you are passing on to your children.

    — Cultural “2”
    Whole cultural ethos of “2” as “complete”, “responsible”, “enviromentally friendly”, “normal”. In fact–trivial math–couples that are capable, physically, emotionally, financially need to target 3 in order to end up with replacement fertility.

    — Loss of religious faith.
    And marriage/children culture that comes with it.

    — Welfare provision
    The lowest end of capability would still be dying in the streets even with modernity, but their child bearing is propped up by the welfare state.

    — The divorce industry.
    Really part of “feminism”, but the anti-male, anti-paternity skew of the legal system has made marriage and siring children extremely fraught. Most of us just hope-for-the-best and wade in anyway, but a bunch of men are simply put off by what a big potentially rip-off awaits them.

    Obviously you can tease apart these buckets, and quibble with the ordering, but I think that’s more or less it. Folks feel free to add or critique.

    • Agree: Rob McX, E. Rekshun
  61. @Bill Jones
    The traditional way to get rid of the polygenic undesirable is a good war. Someone should get Resident Biden working on that PDQ. He might need help from the likes of Pelosi.

    Peter Akuleyev's claim that Nigeria doesn't have much of a Welfare State ignores the fact that most of the population of Africa wouldn't be alive if nor for the pathological altruism of the West.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The traditional way to get rid of the polygenic undesirable is a good war. Someone should get Resident Biden working on that PDQ. He might need help from the likes of Pelosi.

    Say, by picking a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, and by antagonizing the ChiComs over Taiwan? It seems Biden and Pelosi are all over this! But wait, Oops! Wrong kind war. To get rid of the polygenic undesirables, you don’t want a missiles, ships, and nukes war, you want dindu Strafbataillonen facing off on the frozen steppe.

    OTOH, maybe a strategic nuclear exchange wouldn’t be so bad, for the US at least

    Peter Akuleyev’s claim that Nigeria doesn’t have much of a Welfare State ignores the fact that most of the population of Africa wouldn’t be alive if nor for the pathological altruism of the West.

    Just so. Sub-Saharan Africa is part of the West’s de facto global welfare state.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Almost Missouri

    Western aid and charity is like 1% of SS African GDP.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  62. @SFG
    @Almost Missouri

    I mean, it was a major influence on my decision not to (I am not calling myself ‘child free’ as it as insult to those people who do the risk and hard work of rearing the next generation).

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. ;)

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. 😉

    Quarter Jews sound great. Jewish genes should have been mixed in from the get go. Jews should never have been allowed to exist as a separate tribe in the West. It’s a general rule: separate tribes just cause trouble.

    But if you want to keep it at “half”, I can send you my niece’s email (’bout time for her to get serious about such matters).

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)

    And a babe. Considering Miller–terrific guy–is not exactly the most handsome Jewish dude … he scored on all counts.

    The great thing is the Internet has opened up an endless supply of options.

    My suggestion, leap in. Don’t settle until you’ve found one who is both compatible and “based” and really wants to be a wife and mother to your children–not just have a “relationship” for her facebook/instagram profile and her “special day”. But the risks–drama and divorce rape–are far outweighed by the joy you’ll take in having little SFGlets snuggling up to you for storytime, learning from you and later making their way in the world to carry on after you.

    Let you fish swim free!

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @SFG
    @AnotherDad

    Thanks, man, quite flattering (though you really should find someone her age for your niece). It’s a particular combination of relatively weak game, relatively high income that may not persist over the next few decades (making an alimony settlement very dangerous), and a combo of personality traits that make a match difficult (women may be conservative or intellectual (not smart) but rarely both). Basically, there’s nobody who drives me nuts in a good way and the potential downside is huge, not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass. One master is enough, and in a few more years, I should be able to have none. I am not claiming it is ideal or a model for anyone.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon

  63. @Bardon Kaldian
    OT... For Catholics and most other historical Christians:

    https://cdn.britannica.com/52/24352-050-28C3F86F/Assumption-of-the-Virgin-canvas-El-Greco.jpg

    https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/collection-online/7/e/255917-1565084240.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Tizian_041.jpg/800px-Tizian_041.jpg

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    I linked elsewhere to a lovely service from a packed Ukrainian Catholic church, which I found and stayed with while looking for live webcams near the front lines. Instead I found living faith.

    (It is over 2 hours though, I joined more than half way through.)

    Say a prayer for General Samsonov and his fallen men, too, immortalised in Solzhenitsyn’s August 1914, and for whom the day of the Assumption was a day of destiny.

    Samsonov attempted to retreat, but with his army now trapped in a German encirclement, the German forces killed or captured most of his troops. Only 10,000 of the 150,000 Russian soldiers managed to escape the encirclement. At least 92,000 Russian troops were taken prisoner, and between 300 and 500 Russian guns had been captured, out of the Second Army’s initial total of some 600. Over 30,000 Russian soldiers were estimated dead or missing.

    Samsonov and a small group of staff officers and men attempted to escape the encirclement, at first on horseback, and then on foot, over swampy ground, in the darkness of the night of August 29. Samsonov repeatedly was heard to say “The Czar trusted me. How can I face him after such a disaster?” They reached the town of Willenberg late at night, but found it was held by the Germans. At approximately 1 a.m. on August 30, Samsonov slipped away from his party into the forest. A shot rang out. The Russians were not able to find his body in the darkness, but were eventually able to make their way to safety.

    • Thanks: Bardon Kaldian
  64. @Hypnotoad666
    @Corvinus


    “K-selection vs. r-selection…”

    is beset with problems, especially definitional.

    https://eco-intelligent.com/2019/08/13/is-r-k-selection-theory-still-valid-a-look-at-the-glaring-problems/
     
    Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change.

    The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition -- I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly.

    Of course the selective pressure is always dependent on the environment. If the environment changes, the optimal strategy changes, and the selection pressure changes accordingly. When the environment favors K selection strategy, those genes will be favored and vice versa. That doesn't create any problem for the R vs. K dichotomy.

    The issue isn't whether the R vs. K strategy dichotomy is "true" or not (it's true by definition). But only whether it's a useful lens for examining the process of evolution. And it obviously is.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change”

    Staying something is silly does not make it so. What specifically do you disagree with the source? Why? Furthermore, when there are competing definitions, there is the likelihood of subjective application when offering conclusions to a study.

    “The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition — I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly.”

    It is how the theory is applied, not necessarily the theory itself.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Corvinus

    In application, whites have fewer kids later and treat them like hothouse flowers in the hope that they'll secure jobs and own their own residences during their fertile years and feel comfortable enough to produce grandchildren.

    Blacks, r-selection:

    https://youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0

    Speciation.

  65. @Hypnotoad666
    @Achmed E. Newman


    One particular movie comes to mind.
     
    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what's been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    One particular movie comes to mind.

    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what’s been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.

    Idiocracy somehow escaped the prohibition on understanding that intelligence is heritable by veiling it as part of the film’s premise lightly, but it’s something that normal people understand and experience so everyone got it instantly. The only plausible deniability in the film is that the future society is so willfully stupid that one could assume that people became so stupid because their ancestors were born into households in which people just didn’t read books for reasons of character I suppose.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    It think another reason they got away with this movie is because most of the vulgar stupid people on camera are white. Also, it gives the impression that the high-IQ couple didn't have children because they were too cowardly to make the leap. There's no hint of any of the many government policies that have stopped smart people from reproducing.

  66. @AndrewR
    @The Alarmist

    So edgy.

    As for you, Sailer:

    "more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics"

    Who's to say that "highly educated" women aren't dysgenic? Besides (probably) higher median IQs, what eugenic qualities do they tend to possess?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Lower BMIs. Look at female MIT students vs women who live in Appalachian trailer parks.

    Also better parenting abilities. It’s better to have an intensive parenting style than to neglect your kids and spend all your welfare money on drugs instead of food for kids.

  67. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Almost Missouri


    Higher income could indeed increase fertility, but the post-feminist family law of the West is most punitive toward higher income sires while leaving low- or zero-income sires practically untouched, so the selection of modern liberalism overpowers natural selection.

    It’s not only feminist law, it’s the entire modern life script, as described above by Altai.
     

    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of "low status" for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed - "post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we've 'made it' and have purchased a trendy two bedroom condo in Brooklyn/Alexandria/Chicago etc." Underclass blacks and people who shop at WalMart have four and five children or more, and we ignore the former entirely but define our status as being distinct from the latter. Applebee's is a punchline partly because it is emblematic of suburban strip mall homogenized mediocrity, but also in large part because it is one of the few restaurants where children are really welcome (children find homogenized mediocre food palatable). This is perhaps the nadir of Charlton's "clever sillies" hypothesis - they're so clever and their identities so wed to irony and paradox that they're engaging in self-extinction as a means of intra-class status competition.

    Very high status people whose high status is firmly founded and not liable to disruption can have a large number of children without suffering a loss in status. It's viewed as quirky or eccentric, but it's definitely an exception to the general rule applied to anyone under that rarefied air.

    Replies: @martin_2

    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’…

    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people – both sexes – for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @martin_2


    Are there really people dumb enough think like this.
     
    Yes.

    Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.
     
    You’re wrong.
    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @martin_2



    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’…
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people – both sexes – for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.
     
    Part of it is probably sour grapes of younger people who have hit their thirties and didn't have children at all or who didn't have the number of children which they would have had given their druthers (economic and biological). Women who have had zero or one child likely have some cognitive dissonance (and many may have had abortions), so the way to resolve it is to propose that they really wanted zero or only one child anyway. They would then ridicule people with large families in order to fool oneself and others into the belief that the resultant family situation was the result of choice rather than a failure, while counseling other younger women to delay or deny childbearing because misery loves company. Other people imitating your life script validates it.

    I think having children is an abiding interest for the overwhelming majority of people. The spread between people who in their heart of hearts want children and the people who have children is probably large - lots of people now don't have children or as many children as they really want. People who don't want children are probably aberrations - they're represented well beyond their share of the population in media and in public life. By way of example, the situation comedy Seinfeld was about a core of four self-absorbed singleton thirty-somethings in Manhattan living empty lives, none of whom had or particularly wanted children. However, all four of the actors who portrayed these characters had at the time or now have multiple children each. The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    The other issue is probably overproduction of elites - there are fewer great opportunities today than there were in the past, and being a candidate for, say, acceptance to Harvard or Stanford is much more competitive and reliant less on raw general intelligence and more upon a student resume that demonstrates all of the class shibboleths. So if these people want their one point three children to achieve the same or higher status as they, they reason that two higher status parents with dual incomes can invest more in one child than four children, and thereby increase the likelihood of having a kid in Harvard or Stanford.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Problem with Midway

  68. Anonymous[330] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jubilee
    Women with less education aren't necessarily dumber than women with more education. They are just more attractive, more agreeable, and have more maternal instincts.

    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven't started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.

    Getting those women out of the gene pool is highly eugenic!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S. Anonyia, @Hypnotoad666

    if that were the case, ugly, high IQ women would be present in hordes at elite universities.

    yet high IQ women and girls mostly go to elite universities at age 18-24, before they are too old for marriage/kids.

    Also, if it were the case, high IQ women with Caltech degrees would be the ones getting arrested the most for child abuse and child neglect. In reality, Caltech women fawn over their kids and obsess over the child’s health, nutrition, education, emotional wellbeing, social climbing, and extracurriculars.

    Meanwhile low IQ trailer trash women screw random men in the trailer park, and neglect the kids. They spend all the welfare money on drugs while the kids go hungry. They don’t bother to notice when the kids are hanging out with the drug dealer’s kids.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Anonymous

    Note - in the US, trailer park denizens are more likely, per capita, to be black or hispanic. Or, to put it another way, trailer park living is more typical for those groups than it is for whites.

    I mention this as trailer parks are used as a signifier of white dysfunction. Because (((reasons))).

  69. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Would be interesting to see fertility rates by degree of ethnocentrism. I'd highly suspect that more ethnocentric people have higher fertility rates.

    Colorblind civic nationalism is a genetic dead-end. Like feminism, it will die out as more ethnocentric and patriarchal groups out-breed them and/or overwhelm them with higher fertility rates and a more confident, robust culture.

    Replies: @SFG

    Right, but you can breed with anyone. I do think progressivism has the problems you describe since they are so hostile to the traditional gender binary. But colorblind civic nationalism works OK for the average guy who just wants to grill and the average lady who just wants a family. You do get these weird color continua with half Asians in the professional classes, Hispanics in the middle, getting darker as you go down, and half blacks on bottom.

    Steve has kids, no?

    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @SFG

    Actually, Steve has at least one son, but I don't like to talk about anyone's family unless they bring it up.

    And, yes, I'd suspect that your average griller-con CivNat would have more kids than progressives who almost certainly have the lowest fertility rate among whites.

    Now that I think about it, ethnocentrism can't be a sufficient trait to guarantee a higher birthrate. If it was, Japan, China and South Korea wouldn't have such abysmal fertility rates.

    Feminism and living in cities seem to be the kiss of death for fertility rates. But having no pride in your people - or even believing in a people - doesn't help either. Why have expensive and time-consuming kids if everyone is just the same.

    But nature always wins. Feminism and colorblind civic nationalism are failed experiments that will die out over the next few generations.

    Replies: @SFG

  70. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Hypnotoad666



    One particular movie comes to mind.

     

    Actually, one particular scene in one particular movie explains what’s been going on. If they had a Nobel Prize for Comedy Science, I would nominate Mike Judge.
     
    Idiocracy somehow escaped the prohibition on understanding that intelligence is heritable by veiling it as part of the film's premise lightly, but it's something that normal people understand and experience so everyone got it instantly. The only plausible deniability in the film is that the future society is so willfully stupid that one could assume that people became so stupid because their ancestors were born into households in which people just didn't read books for reasons of character I suppose.

    Replies: @Rob McX

    It think another reason they got away with this movie is because most of the vulgar stupid people on camera are white. Also, it gives the impression that the high-IQ couple didn’t have children because they were too cowardly to make the leap. There’s no hint of any of the many government policies that have stopped smart people from reproducing.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  71. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    “in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible”

    I was thinking that exact same thing. It’s odd how I continually hear about how “disadvantaged groups” need to be at the front of the line for all manner of government programs which begs the question:

    If those groups are always at the front of the line for the new programs and giveaways how is it that they are “disadvantaged”??

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @interesting

    The culture is very good at sending out mixed messages!

    Because they are presented as being disadvantaged just here and now. Everywhere else, they are curing rocket cancer and sheet.

  72. It’s too much effort to think about what all that data mean. But if you are poor, have a menial job, and don’t have much money, you generally aren’t too interested in what really cool new technology is coming down the pike or the fall brochure for the local opera company. But you do have a great interest in sex, unlike, maybe, your lofty superior intellect betters because there’s enough of the gorilla in you so you’re not shy about hitting on a lot of women (the quality of which maybe ain’t too high) until you hit paydirt.

  73. @Altai

    Or it could be that educational attainment is a test of both cognitive ability and socialization and picks for meeker males?

    It’s long been recognized that more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics.

    On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

    “We explain these patterns using the economic theory of fertility, which was first developed more than 60 years ago.

    Gary Becker said that higher income could either increase fertility by making more children affordable or decrease fertility by making the opportunity cost of kids higher. Thanks, Gary, that clears everything up!
     
    People focus on total fertility but neglect generation time. People tend to wait to have children and settle down until they have their life settled. Dumber or more impulsive people who don't tend to do well in the increasingly competitive and time-consuming world of higher education 'reach their potential' and start their full adult lives earlier and tend to think about marrying their partners and having children earlier. This has only become more problematic as degree inflation has taken hold. A masters becoming the equivalent of a good degree, a PhD become the equivalent of a masters etc.

    If one life script has people having say the same rough amount of children but one life script tends to produce the first children 5 to 8 years earlier then over time this has a huge impact. The total lifetime fertility is the same but the generation time is different.

    An interesting example of this in animals is with Mute Swans. Among Mute Swan bred for semi-domestication a mutation lead to cygnets not being born with their typical dark feathers. These are known as 'immutabilis' (Unchanging, they are born with adult looking feathers) and their lack of dark feathers during the typical age range of normal cygnets leads to their parents not having their nurturing instinct triggered once they get to full size and driving them off a year earlier than their peers. This also leads to them being perceived as a mature mate earlier and mating earlier. So an interesting trade-off leading to a faster life history. (In humans this can also be seen with black children often looking noticeably older than their white peers until very late in adolescence and the controversy over them being mistaken and treated as older)

    Many middle class and up but not rich families have life scripts of having your children in your earlier thirties now. Additionally they also believe that a higher standard of life is possible and within reach so the ones who've lived through the 2010s to today have kept off longer than in retrospect they should have because the higher standard of life didn't materialise, in most countries it got worse. However culture has begun to adapt beyond just children living with parents longer but also in terms of full families living with parents in a way that didn't exist the generation prior. (People also seem more open to having their parents live with them in old age than sending them to nursing homes)

    So you have increasing education inflation leading to higher degrees and opportunities being handled by the most k, most patient deferring, least impulsive least disagreeable cohorts with them waiting until they have finished their education process and gotten their first stable job before thinking of having children. (The increasing difficulty in having a stable job and of their appropriate opportunities being in the same city make this take even longer) But less educated peers reach that level sooner and sometimes even with higher income levels (Tradesmen often make more money but such jobs often don't interest, aren't in the life script or are perceived as too low status for the k-selected cohorts to pour into, contra modern economics people generally do what society tells them to do as a profession rather than fiendishly seek out greater money at every chance)

    Generally if young people aren't settling down and having families it's due to a maladaption or malcondition in society rather than the people whose instinct seldom changes.

    Replies: @SFG, @SWVirginian

    Demographic change can really kick in when we take one detail into consideration: the length of time between generations. The age at which women begin producing their children matters even if the number that they produce isn’t excessive.

    Take, for example, Woman A, who postpones children until she is 30 to pursue education and passes these cultural values on to her children. Then take Woman B, who begins bearing children when she ends her education at 18 – or earlier – and passes these cultural values on to her children. If we restrict the number of children per generation to 2 and the years between births to 2 – just to keep things equitable – we can then see some quick kicking demographics.

    The second generation isn’t too dramatic. By the time that Woman A has completed her family at 32, Woman B still has only her 2 children, born when she was 18 and 20.

    Then it starts to get interesting.

    By the time that Woman A first becomes a grandmother at 60, Woman B has 4 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. That makes 3 descendants for Woman A at age 60 and 14 for Woman B.

    Let’s assume that they both live into their early 80’s. By the time, she dies at 83, Woman A will have produced 2 children, who will have produced 4 grandchildren, making her descendants total 6 at her death.

    Meanwhile in this same 83 years, Woman B will have produced 2 children, 4 grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren, and 16 great-great-grandchildren for a total of 30 descendants.

    The difference between 6 and 30 is quite remarkable. Even more remarkable is the fact that the people in example A are far more likely to be net tax payers than those in example B. Needless to say, if you lower the age at which Woman B begins her childbearing even a couple of years and raise her number of children to 3 or 4, demographic change can kick in even more quickly.

    The culture of the immigrants we allow into the US can be very important in the type of society we cultivate.

    • Agree: Pixo, E. Rekshun
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @SWVirginian

    Great point, SW Virginian.

  74. @Jubilee
    Women with less education aren't necessarily dumber than women with more education. They are just more attractive, more agreeable, and have more maternal instincts.

    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven't started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.

    Getting those women out of the gene pool is highly eugenic!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S. Anonyia, @Hypnotoad666

    Your take would be relevant if it were the 70s or 80s.

    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men. You’re crazy to think the people of Wal-Mart are more attractive and agreeable than college grads. The obesity epidemic means that 90% of blue collar women and about 75% of blue collar men lose their looks after age 25 (men are somewhat more protected due to less sedentary jobs).

    • Agree: martin_2
    • Replies: @Pixo
    @S. Anonyia

    Try going to a Target in a nice suburb, you’ll find an abundance of thin and pretty women of all ages.

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @S. Anonyia


    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men.
     
    This is visually undeniable. For example, compare the people you see at airports (not rich, but more upscale than average) with the people at Wal-Mart or Costco (not poor, but less upscale).

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  75. @Almost Missouri
    @Bill Jones


    The traditional way to get rid of the polygenic undesirable is a good war. Someone should get Resident Biden working on that PDQ. He might need help from the likes of Pelosi.
     
    Say, by picking a fight with Russia over the Ukraine, and by antagonizing the ChiComs over Taiwan? It seems Biden and Pelosi are all over this! But wait, Oops! Wrong kind war. To get rid of the polygenic undesirables, you don't want a missiles, ships, and nukes war, you want dindu Strafbataillonen facing off on the frozen steppe.

    OTOH, maybe a strategic nuclear exchange wouldn't be so bad, for the US at least ...

    Peter Akuleyev’s claim that Nigeria doesn’t have much of a Welfare State ignores the fact that most of the population of Africa wouldn’t be alive if nor for the pathological altruism of the West.
     
    Just so. Sub-Saharan Africa is part of the West's de facto global welfare state.

    Replies: @Pixo

    Western aid and charity is like 1% of SS African GDP.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Pixo

    Not sure where that figure is from. If you look at, e.g., the Wikipedia page for Development Assistance, which is only one kind of aid, you will see this graphic showing that in most SS African countries, this aid is a very substantial portion of the government budget. Indeed, in several countries the Development Assistance aid is more than double the entire government budget. Basically, the only SS African countries not severely dependent on aid are a few of the countries in South Africa's economic cone.

    Even in the few SS African countries not obviously aid dependent, they get de facto aid under other names. I described one example here. Another example: Mark Zuckerberg visited Nigeria and "invested" $24m in African "tech" company (actually an employment agency) Andela. Will that ever pay for itself? Probably not. But that wasn't the point. The point was to be seen doing something for Africa. Another example: US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has a budget of $275m or so, much of which is spent in Africa, yet none of that counts as "aid".

    Note that much of Africa's nominal GDP is the product of extractive industries, the revenue from which barely touches Africa before being deposited in the Swiss bank accounts of the elites or merely being cycled through the local accounts of foreign multinationals. Most Africans subsist on less than a dollar a day, so even in the rare cases where aid is apparently modest (and de facto aid is in reality larger than de jure aid), aid can still support a lot of Africans in a welfare condition. In other words, for less than a buck a day, you can make an African dependent on you. The West has made many Africans dependent on it. (Whether that was done cynically or from misplaced good intentions is beside the point.)

    But don't take my word for it, heroic Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo wrote an entire book on the dire effect of foreign aid on Africa. Whatever you believe the aid figures to be, somehow it is enough to cripple Africa's economy and plunge huge populations into economic dependency.

    Replies: @Pixo

  76. @SFG
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Right, but you can breed with anyone. I do think progressivism has the problems you describe since they are so hostile to the traditional gender binary. But colorblind civic nationalism works OK for the average guy who just wants to grill and the average lady who just wants a family. You do get these weird color continua with half Asians in the professional classes, Hispanics in the middle, getting darker as you go down, and half blacks on bottom.

    Steve has kids, no?

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Actually, Steve has at least one son, but I don’t like to talk about anyone’s family unless they bring it up.

    And, yes, I’d suspect that your average griller-con CivNat would have more kids than progressives who almost certainly have the lowest fertility rate among whites.

    Now that I think about it, ethnocentrism can’t be a sufficient trait to guarantee a higher birthrate. If it was, Japan, China and South Korea wouldn’t have such abysmal fertility rates.

    Feminism and living in cities seem to be the kiss of death for fertility rates. But having no pride in your people – or even believing in a people – doesn’t help either. Why have expensive and time-consuming kids if everyone is just the same.

    But nature always wins. Feminism and colorblind civic nationalism are failed experiments that will die out over the next few generations.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    He’s talked about them a few times, but you are right, bad example.

    I mean, lots of conservatives in the USA are ethnonationalists, and lots of conservatives have big families, but I don’t see a huge correlation. The ones who have big families, to the extent I can see a pattern, seem to be religious, particularly Catholic.

    I think colorblind civic nationalism may Well collapse due to the prisoner’s dilemma problem that a group that demands special privileges will outcompete one that doesn’t. But whatever the success of their ideology, the normiecons seem to be successful at having kids at least.

  77. @S. Anonyia
    @Jubilee

    Your take would be relevant if it were the 70s or 80s.

    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men. You’re crazy to think the people of Wal-Mart are more attractive and agreeable than college grads. The obesity epidemic means that 90% of blue collar women and about 75% of blue collar men lose their looks after age 25 (men are somewhat more protected due to less sedentary jobs).

    Replies: @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666

    Try going to a Target in a nice suburb, you’ll find an abundance of thin and pretty women of all ages.

  78. “In any case, that seems pretty inevitable: natural selection making society more unequal.”

    Question: Exactly when during the last 10k years of human history has society ever been truly equal?

    Crickets chirping (quite loudly too).

    “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”

  79. @The Alarmist
    We have too much safety in our societies, so of course natural selection is failing.

    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing. A couple world wars also did wonders for the gene pool, but they seem to have turned the children of those generations into mawkish skulls full of fragile mush.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @kaganovitch, @Joe Stalin, @Anon

    The highest casualty rates in world war II were in elite units like the submariners and the Air Force. Real dumbasses were sent to rear area logistical support units.

    • Replies: @Mark G.
    @Anon


    The highest casualty rates in world war II were in elite units like the submariners and the Air Force. Real dumbasses were sent to rear area logistical support units.
     
    My grandfather had a PhD in entomology, the study of insects. In World War II he was put to work on a program eradicating mosquitos to slow the spread of malaria among the soldiers on various Pacific islands. It was probably a lot less dangerous trying to kill mosquitos than trying to kill Japs so that was a rare instance where being really smart helped to keep you out of harm's way.
  80. @Joe Stalin
    @The Alarmist


    Ditch the welfare programs, hand out guns to all, and get back to installing school-yard monkey-bars over concrete pads or asphalt like the good old days, when western civilisation was on the upswing.
     
    In the 1960s, it was standard fare for single mothers to bitch and moan about how their useless baby daddies weren't forking over child support. Do you hear that anymore? It's a direct line from your paycheck to the baby mommas today.

    Make the cosmopolitans sick with dread: repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 and bring back mail order guns and USPS delivered ammo. Bring back TOBACCO advertising and make the professional whiners steam with rage over their how their non-stop attacks on your personal health choices was for naught.

    What's a busy buddy to do when they no longer have the power of government?

    Replies: @Anon

    Don’t forget legalizing drunk driving. And free fentanyl too. Stick it to the man with self destructive behavior. Yeah!

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Anon

    Great exemplar of how The Man thinks and how we got to where we after less than six decades of US government power extension and acceptance, Anon[268]!

  81. @Pixo
    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women. For example, Condi Rice, who obtained her BA at 19, is an only child and has no children. The other inaugural woman at Augusta National is Darla Moore, a self-made high-finance billionairess. She has one child and looks like a pretty 1980s actress.

    https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postandcourier.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/53/d53b60a0-9723-11eb-9987-23c80aadb755/606e13e15ead2.image.jpg

    Replies: @SFG, @AnotherDad

    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women.

    Thanks Pixo. This is exactly what I’ve seen in the data again and again and again.

    The negative IQ selection is close to 100% (maybe 90%) driven by women and through educational attainment.

    Smart men’s fertility is “dragged down” by their tendency to marry smart educated women (often with only a brief fertility window left). But higher IQ men’s own superior achievement and capability is fertility positive–i.e. they are more attractive to women and better at talking to and appealling to women–and eugenic. The result of these two effects is a fairly flat fertility/IQ distribution for men.

    And yeah, this really pummels black women. They want white-picket-fence families. But black men are poor at providing that. And educated black men are fewer in number and have the outside-the-race-option. The result is a lot of childless educated black women, while their “sistas” in the hood are getting knocked up by the players–driving a consistent disgenic trend in American blacks. This is somewhat offset by the inflow of white genes. But the white women submitting to this are not in general top of the line.

    ~~

    Summary from the data i’ve seen:
    Educational attainment off the table (held steady), IQ is probably neutral or even slightly fertility positive.
    Women’s educational attainment off the table (held steady), male IQ is mildly fertility positive.

    The essence of the issue is smart women tend to stay in school a long time, then want to have “careers” and end up really constricting their marriage-and-successful-child-bearing window. And smart men get sucked down with them.

    • Agree: Pixo
    • Replies: @Anon
    @AnotherDad

    You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I can tell you got your perspective of the world from spending your evenings clipping coupons off the backs of cereal boxes. Smart men don't go for women of their IQ level, they tend to prefer women beneath them. I'm about to educate your clueless ass:


    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/why-do-smart-men-date-less-intelligent-women/348592/

    Smart women are just genetic dead ends. They never reproduce with anyone, their only hope of letting is to hire a homeless man to fuck 'em. It's the "golden mean" women who are slightly above average intelligence, and from middle class backgrounds, who bag the smart guys.

    Also, high IQ isn't eugenic, it's often the result of genetic disorders hanging in the balance, like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs. Fringe populations are never eugenic whether they be on the left or right side of the bell curve. Eugenic is somewhere in the golden middle, where the genetic diversity is.

    How clueless can you be? Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that's usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness. That's more of a problem for smart women than smart men.

    Now shine my shoes, you stinky wetback.

    Replies: @Pixo

    , @Pixo
    @AnotherDad

    Very good summary. On the positive, white US fertility has improved to roughly neutral now compared to dysgenic during the whole 20th century.

    Delayed fertility among the high IQ however has a double-negative not captured by TFR: population expands slower and high parental age is dysgenic for both sexes. This may be a reason why polygamous Islam is so dysgenic. You end up with several dysgenic trends:

    1. Men over 60 with degraded sperm reproducing with 2nd 3rd 4th wives
    2. The resulting woman shortage leading to middling men needing to delay marriage to focus on improving economic and social status.
    3. The resulting woman shortage meaning the lowest 5% of women still find husbands.
    4. More inbreeding as men make their daughters marry their nephews who can’t otherwise find wives.

    The blending of the white lower class is creating a bi and triracial non-white permanent lower class that sits above pure blacks and about the same as immigrant mestizos and pardos. The resulting smaller purely white population could well be increasing in genotypic IQ. I think this has happened already in Mexico, where the best of the indian population boiled up into the main mestizo population along with the lower part of the white population. Thus I think the genotypic IQ difference between pure whites and Indians is larger than in 1491.

  82. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Peter Akuleyev


    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.
     
    I have a suspicion that whether by design or opportunity, the marriage of virtual reality, artificial intelligence and lifelike sexbots will be the ruling class's preferred manner of disposing with excess low status males in somatic golden cages. The point where one can live in a virtual state of endless carnal pleasure, being the main character of the pornographic cinematic virtual universe which is in sensory terms "even better than the real thing" from sexual awakening through death will be difficult to resist, especially when augmented with free Mountain Dew flavored bug paste and artificial designer drugs which produce a general feeling of well-being.

    They'd be sort of like sophisticated versions of decoys that hunters use to coax all manner of game animals into a line of sight for a terminal shot. Doe decoys are often doused with real doe urine of does in heat, so bucks often find the prospect irresistible as they abandon all weariness and instinct for self-preservation.

    Replies: @Farenheit

    I’ve coined a phrase for the world you just described:

    Digital Valhalla ™

  83. On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids.

    Elon Musk completed college however patience doesn’t seem to be one of his virtue’s. I remember reading somewhere when his first wife divorced him, she had a hard time determining his net worth as on any given day he was either a billionaire or bankrupt. This was when he was trying to orbit his first rocket. SpaceX had multiple failures, apparently in the last attempt, he went all in financially. Luckily his gamble succeeded. Anyway 15 years later he willingly pays a shit load of child support and wife/partner support, lending some credence to the above theory.

  84. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    People not having kids because they care more about having big careers are the irresponsible ones. People need to have kids so the population doesn’t crash. The overall problem is a low, below replacement birth rate. People not having kids are the problem. Women who value career over motherhood are misguided and should be stigmatized.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Joe862


    Women who value career over motherhood are misguided and should be stigmatized.
     
    Agreed, 100%, Joe.

    People need to have kids so the population doesn’t crash.
     
    There's not a problem with a population crashing - not unless you are importing a new people to replace them, as they will then lose their country. It may require slight changes to society in transition, but the Japanese could lose 2/3 of the population* and be better off. That's IF they don't allow massive immigration.

    Now, the latter seems like a contradiction of the former. It's not. I believe most women should not be in careers because it makes mens' lives more miserable in a number of ways and they are usually happier doing what they were made for.

    Finally to your basic point of your reply: It's not irresponsible to not have kids - I think one might call it selfish instead sometimes, depending on the situation.


    .

    * BTW, that would still make the place denser than California!
  85. @martin_2
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’...
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people - both sexes - for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with "status" when it comes to having kids.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Are there really people dumb enough think like this.

    Yes.

    Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.

    You’re wrong.

  86. Anon[167] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    @Pixo


    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women.
     

    Thanks Pixo. This is exactly what I've seen in the data again and again and again.

    The negative IQ selection is close to 100% (maybe 90%) driven by women and through educational attainment.

    Smart men's fertility is "dragged down" by their tendency to marry smart educated women (often with only a brief fertility window left). But higher IQ men's own superior achievement and capability is fertility positive--i.e. they are more attractive to women and better at talking to and appealling to women--and eugenic. The result of these two effects is a fairly flat fertility/IQ distribution for men.

    And yeah, this really pummels black women. They want white-picket-fence families. But black men are poor at providing that. And educated black men are fewer in number and have the outside-the-race-option. The result is a lot of childless educated black women, while their "sistas" in the hood are getting knocked up by the players--driving a consistent disgenic trend in American blacks. This is somewhat offset by the inflow of white genes. But the white women submitting to this are not in general top of the line.

    ~~

    Summary from the data i've seen:
    Educational attainment off the table (held steady), IQ is probably neutral or even slightly fertility positive.
    Women's educational attainment off the table (held steady), male IQ is mildly fertility positive.

    The essence of the issue is smart women tend to stay in school a long time, then want to have "careers" and end up really constricting their marriage-and-successful-child-bearing window. And smart men get sucked down with them.

    Replies: @Anon, @Pixo

    You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I can tell you got your perspective of the world from spending your evenings clipping coupons off the backs of cereal boxes. Smart men don’t go for women of their IQ level, they tend to prefer women beneath them. I’m about to educate your clueless ass:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/why-do-smart-men-date-less-intelligent-women/348592/

    Smart women are just genetic dead ends. They never reproduce with anyone, their only hope of letting is to hire a homeless man to fuck ’em. It’s the “golden mean” women who are slightly above average intelligence, and from middle class backgrounds, who bag the smart guys.

    Also, high IQ isn’t eugenic, it’s often the result of genetic disorders hanging in the balance, like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs. Fringe populations are never eugenic whether they be on the left or right side of the bell curve. Eugenic is somewhere in the golden middle, where the genetic diversity is.

    How clueless can you be? Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness. That’s more of a problem for smart women than smart men.

    Now shine my shoes, you stinky wetback.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Anon

    “ like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs”

    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage. An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Anon

  87. @martin_2
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’...
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people - both sexes - for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with "status" when it comes to having kids.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’…

    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people – both sexes – for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.

    Part of it is probably sour grapes of younger people who have hit their thirties and didn’t have children at all or who didn’t have the number of children which they would have had given their druthers (economic and biological). Women who have had zero or one child likely have some cognitive dissonance (and many may have had abortions), so the way to resolve it is to propose that they really wanted zero or only one child anyway. They would then ridicule people with large families in order to fool oneself and others into the belief that the resultant family situation was the result of choice rather than a failure, while counseling other younger women to delay or deny childbearing because misery loves company. Other people imitating your life script validates it.

    I think having children is an abiding interest for the overwhelming majority of people. The spread between people who in their heart of hearts want children and the people who have children is probably large – lots of people now don’t have children or as many children as they really want. People who don’t want children are probably aberrations – they’re represented well beyond their share of the population in media and in public life. By way of example, the situation comedy Seinfeld was about a core of four self-absorbed singleton thirty-somethings in Manhattan living empty lives, none of whom had or particularly wanted children. However, all four of the actors who portrayed these characters had at the time or now have multiple children each. The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    The other issue is probably overproduction of elites – there are fewer great opportunities today than there were in the past, and being a candidate for, say, acceptance to Harvard or Stanford is much more competitive and reliant less on raw general intelligence and more upon a student resume that demonstrates all of the class shibboleths. So if these people want their one point three children to achieve the same or higher status as they, they reason that two higher status parents with dual incomes can invest more in one child than four children, and thereby increase the likelihood of having a kid in Harvard or Stanford.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.
     
    They wound up wanting them, or they wound up having them? Didn’t you just write that they all had them?

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    , @The Problem with Midway
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Sour grapes is an important factor. Every old slut with herpes wants all younger and cuter White women to have it too. Every man-hating cat lady dies a little to see a loving White couple and their beautiful children. And these defective women are the ones who get tenure, are heard on mass media, and get their books published.

  88. @Anonymous
    @Jubilee

    if that were the case, ugly, high IQ women would be present in hordes at elite universities.

    yet high IQ women and girls mostly go to elite universities at age 18-24, before they are too old for marriage/kids.

    Also, if it were the case, high IQ women with Caltech degrees would be the ones getting arrested the most for child abuse and child neglect. In reality, Caltech women fawn over their kids and obsess over the child's health, nutrition, education, emotional wellbeing, social climbing, and extracurriculars.

    Meanwhile low IQ trailer trash women screw random men in the trailer park, and neglect the kids. They spend all the welfare money on drugs while the kids go hungry. They don't bother to notice when the kids are hanging out with the drug dealer's kids.

    Replies: @Lurker

    Note – in the US, trailer park denizens are more likely, per capita, to be black or hispanic. Or, to put it another way, trailer park living is more typical for those groups than it is for whites.

    I mention this as trailer parks are used as a signifier of white dysfunction. Because (((reasons))).

  89. @interesting
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible"


    I was thinking that exact same thing. It's odd how I continually hear about how "disadvantaged groups" need to be at the front of the line for all manner of government programs which begs the question:

    If those groups are always at the front of the line for the new programs and giveaways how is it that they are "disadvantaged"??

    Replies: @Lurker

    The culture is very good at sending out mixed messages!

    Because they are presented as being disadvantaged just here and now. Everywhere else, they are curing rocket cancer and sheet.

  90. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @martin_2



    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’…
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people – both sexes – for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.
     
    Part of it is probably sour grapes of younger people who have hit their thirties and didn't have children at all or who didn't have the number of children which they would have had given their druthers (economic and biological). Women who have had zero or one child likely have some cognitive dissonance (and many may have had abortions), so the way to resolve it is to propose that they really wanted zero or only one child anyway. They would then ridicule people with large families in order to fool oneself and others into the belief that the resultant family situation was the result of choice rather than a failure, while counseling other younger women to delay or deny childbearing because misery loves company. Other people imitating your life script validates it.

    I think having children is an abiding interest for the overwhelming majority of people. The spread between people who in their heart of hearts want children and the people who have children is probably large - lots of people now don't have children or as many children as they really want. People who don't want children are probably aberrations - they're represented well beyond their share of the population in media and in public life. By way of example, the situation comedy Seinfeld was about a core of four self-absorbed singleton thirty-somethings in Manhattan living empty lives, none of whom had or particularly wanted children. However, all four of the actors who portrayed these characters had at the time or now have multiple children each. The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    The other issue is probably overproduction of elites - there are fewer great opportunities today than there were in the past, and being a candidate for, say, acceptance to Harvard or Stanford is much more competitive and reliant less on raw general intelligence and more upon a student resume that demonstrates all of the class shibboleths. So if these people want their one point three children to achieve the same or higher status as they, they reason that two higher status parents with dual incomes can invest more in one child than four children, and thereby increase the likelihood of having a kid in Harvard or Stanford.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Problem with Midway

    The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    They wound up wanting them, or they wound up having them? Didn’t you just write that they all had them?

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Anonymous



    The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.
     
    They wound up wanting them, or they wound up having them? Didn’t you just write that they all had them?
     
    I thought this was clear but the four actors who played the core Seinfeld characters - none of whom expressed a desire for marriage and children but expressed opposite sentiments with regard to peripheral characters' children - either had children while working on the show or came to have children after the show's run. I'm presuming that because they had them with their then spouses that they wanted the children.
  91. @Joe862
    @Achmed E. Newman

    People not having kids because they care more about having big careers are the irresponsible ones. People need to have kids so the population doesn't crash. The overall problem is a low, below replacement birth rate. People not having kids are the problem. Women who value career over motherhood are misguided and should be stigmatized.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Women who value career over motherhood are misguided and should be stigmatized.

    Agreed, 100%, Joe.

    People need to have kids so the population doesn’t crash.

    There’s not a problem with a population crashing – not unless you are importing a new people to replace them, as they will then lose their country. It may require slight changes to society in transition, but the Japanese could lose 2/3 of the population* and be better off. That’s IF they don’t allow massive immigration.

    Now, the latter seems like a contradiction of the former. It’s not. I believe most women should not be in careers because it makes mens’ lives more miserable in a number of ways and they are usually happier doing what they were made for.

    Finally to your basic point of your reply: It’s not irresponsible to not have kids – I think one might call it selfish instead sometimes, depending on the situation.

    .

    * BTW, that would still make the place denser than California!

    • Agree: Mark G.
  92. @SWVirginian
    @Altai

    Demographic change can really kick in when we take one detail into consideration: the length of time between generations. The age at which women begin producing their children matters even if the number that they produce isn’t excessive.

    Take, for example, Woman A, who postpones children until she is 30 to pursue education and passes these cultural values on to her children. Then take Woman B, who begins bearing children when she ends her education at 18 - or earlier - and passes these cultural values on to her children. If we restrict the number of children per generation to 2 and the years between births to 2 – just to keep things equitable - we can then see some quick kicking demographics.

    The second generation isn’t too dramatic. By the time that Woman A has completed her family at 32, Woman B still has only her 2 children, born when she was 18 and 20.

    Then it starts to get interesting.

    By the time that Woman A first becomes a grandmother at 60, Woman B has 4 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. That makes 3 descendants for Woman A at age 60 and 14 for Woman B.

    Let’s assume that they both live into their early 80’s. By the time, she dies at 83, Woman A will have produced 2 children, who will have produced 4 grandchildren, making her descendants total 6 at her death.

    Meanwhile in this same 83 years, Woman B will have produced 2 children, 4 grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren, and 16 great-great-grandchildren for a total of 30 descendants.

    The difference between 6 and 30 is quite remarkable. Even more remarkable is the fact that the people in example A are far more likely to be net tax payers than those in example B. Needless to say, if you lower the age at which Woman B begins her childbearing even a couple of years and raise her number of children to 3 or 4, demographic change can kick in even more quickly.

    The culture of the immigrants we allow into the US can be very important in the type of society we cultivate.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Great point, SW Virginian.

  93. Current day survival of the fittest discussions assume a complex society that makes life easy. Ergo, those most used to living off of low hanging fruit do well.

    In actuality, our society is in a lull between times where survival is not assured. Over the span of a few hundred years, survival and having more children than your competitor will depend on having the foresight to anticipate, plan for, and make preparations for a food shortage.

    For a short time, those who are proficient at getting protein from fellow humanoids may seem to do well, but like animals in the wild who learn to avoid humans, they’re going to learn to avoid other humans. Survival will be for those with future time orientation.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @James Speaks

    Very well said. That ought to obviate most of this nonsensical discussion.

  94. @Anon
    @Joe Stalin

    Don't forget legalizing drunk driving. And free fentanyl too. Stick it to the man with self destructive behavior. Yeah!

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Great exemplar of how The Man thinks and how we got to where we after less than six decades of US government power extension and acceptance, Anon[268]!

  95. @James Speaks
    Current day survival of the fittest discussions assume a complex society that makes life easy. Ergo, those most used to living off of low hanging fruit do well.

    In actuality, our society is in a lull between times where survival is not assured. Over the span of a few hundred years, survival and having more children than your competitor will depend on having the foresight to anticipate, plan for, and make preparations for a food shortage.

    For a short time, those who are proficient at getting protein from fellow humanoids may seem to do well, but like animals in the wild who learn to avoid humans, they’re going to learn to avoid other humans. Survival will be for those with future time orientation.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    Very well said. That ought to obviate most of this nonsensical discussion.

    • Thanks: James Speaks
  96. @Peter Akuleyev
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism? In Nigeria there is not much of a welfare net but huge numbers of children. We have reached a general level of material abundance where it is simply difficult to die of disease, exposure or starvation no matter how poor you are. It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @kaganovitch, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mark G.

    Can you show there is greater increase in inequality in Sweden than in the US or Japan, where there is much less socialism?

    America is not actually much less socialist. Working class Swedes receive more in government benefits than working class Americans but also pay more in taxes. The American income tax system is more progressive. In the U.S. the top ten percent pay 45% of income taxes while in Sweden it is 27%. An earlier Swedish government tried steeply progressive income taxes but it didn’t work because people cut back on working to put themselves in a lower tax bracket, engaged in income tax evasion or left the country. Much of the money collected by the Swedish government comes from proportional payroll taxes, flat regional taxes and consumption taxes. It’s the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor that is harmful because it creates disincentives to work hard and encourages laziness and sloth and there is not much more of that in Sweden than in the U.S.

  97. @HammerJack
    Natural selection, like all of nature, is irredeemably racist. Good thing they stuck to wypipos.

    The team studied the participants’ polygenic scores—an estimate of a person’s genetic liability, predicting a person’s health, education, lifestyle or personality.
     
    This team would be out of work fast in the USA for using language like that.

    Replies: @SFG, @Hypnotoad666

    This team would be out of work fast in the USA for using language like that.

    They get away with it because they are only sampling white people, “polygenic score” is sufficiently vague and indirect, and they use “educational attainment” instead of IQ. All good ways to sneak up sideways on genetic issues.

    One problem with Steve’s post is that the charts are an absolute mess. The axes either aren’t labelled or are cut off. You honestly can’t tell what is being measured against what. If Steve actually read or understood the study, he should have taken a moment to fix the charts or explain them.

  98. @S. Anonyia
    @Jubilee

    Your take would be relevant if it were the 70s or 80s.

    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men. You’re crazy to think the people of Wal-Mart are more attractive and agreeable than college grads. The obesity epidemic means that 90% of blue collar women and about 75% of blue collar men lose their looks after age 25 (men are somewhat more protected due to less sedentary jobs).

    Replies: @Pixo, @Hypnotoad666

    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men.

    This is visually undeniable. For example, compare the people you see at airports (not rich, but more upscale than average) with the people at Wal-Mart or Costco (not poor, but less upscale).

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Hypnotoad666

    You haven't seen ugly until you've spent a few hours in a Spirit Airlines terminal.

  99. @Jubilee
    Women with less education aren't necessarily dumber than women with more education. They are just more attractive, more agreeable, and have more maternal instincts.

    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven't started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.

    Getting those women out of the gene pool is highly eugenic!

    Replies: @Anonymous, @S. Anonyia, @Hypnotoad666

    The unattractive and shrewish women end up over-educated BECAUSE they haven’t started a family, i.e. no man wants them, so they have free time to invest in education.

    Going to college is (or anyway, was) actually a good investment for a woman who wants to have a family. It’s the perfect place to meet a man who may be able to support a family. In other words, a good place to get an “MRS Degree.” The problem is that now almost 2/3 college students are women.

    • Agree: Giant Duck
  100. Anonymous[172] • Disclaimer says:

    So if I’m reading that chart right, the top 3 things being selected for, at least among the above subset of traits, are ADHD, smoking initiation, and BMI?

    That certainly would seem to accord with real world experience. Everyone is addicted to their smartphones and social media which depend on users’ ADHD. And it seems like the only new brick and mortar businesses in America now are “vape” or smoke shops of some kind. I’ve driven all over America over the past 4 years, and these vape/smoke shops are proliferating like weeds. And not just in low rent areas. Nice areas and upscale strip malls all have them too. And BMI – of course people just keep getting fatter.

    The high brow literary dystopias envisioned in the past like 1984 and Brave New World seem increasingly quaint. Something like Wall-E – whether future people are obese, fast food and media addicted, may be more prophetic.

  101. @anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Interesting about Capernaum: I'd not heard of it, so thanks for the link. I'm torn between admiration for ME film-people having insight into poverty-stricken lives, and recognition that their culture is unlikely to ever solve the problem, merely export it to the West, which downgrades us, without upgrading them.

    On the subject of exports, I see the child star was exported to Norway. Somehow I doubt the news world has heard the last of him, but I wouldn't hazard a guess as whether that future news will be positive or negative.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zain_Al_Rafeea

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    I wish Zain and everyone involved the very best but yes, Lebanon needs to grow up and become a real country instead of exporting Lebanon everywhere else. The country is sectarian and nobody is really a Lebanese nationalist other than the Christians.

    BTW, my impression from visiting there was the Druze were a pretty cool, Zoroastrian-type, nationalist group. Then when I got back home and told a Lebanese Christian friend about it he said he left during the1980s because the Druze militias in his area had started targeting Christians.

    Marriage is big business in Lebanon. We were repeatedly routed around village centers by young guys not so subtly packing weapons due to wedding celebrations (average age 29 years). Lebanon unlike much of the West has a lot of future ahead of it and their young people seem to favor good food and good times over internecine warfare so we’ll see. The Lebanese elite need to be slaughtered in their beds.

  102. @Hypnotoad666
    @S. Anonyia


    Nowadays it’s obvious that educated and richer people are better looking, and that the effect is way more pronounced with women than men.
     
    This is visually undeniable. For example, compare the people you see at airports (not rich, but more upscale than average) with the people at Wal-Mart or Costco (not poor, but less upscale).

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    You haven’t seen ugly until you’ve spent a few hours in a Spirit Airlines terminal.

  103. Steve,
    I left a comment a few months ago about RA Fishers’s Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (pdf) On pg 256-283 by pdf numbering (228 by page number) the father of Mendelian-based evolutionary biology lays out the most important theory in social science.

    The gist is that in a meritocracy (or free market) that allows people to rise and fall in socioeconomic status over generations, the sort of parents who have enough on the ball to get their kids set up to rise have to spend a lot of money per kid. So, it ends up that the higher classes are genetically predisposed to have fewer children and invest more in each. This goes on until things fall apart.

    I highly recommend reading that section. Giving TGTONS a read is probably a good idea for evolutionary biologists, though I have not done so. I really suggest reading the Social Selection of Fertility section.

    It suggests that our old meritocracy, where smart kids from the working class and even some from the lower classes got free k-12, then took the SAT and went to college for, by today’s standards nearly for free before entering a career might have been the best way to run a meritocracy.

    Very interestingly, SSoF theory implies that there might be a lot of talent in the lower classes that goes with high fertility. The strategy would be being smart (smart has more advantages than costs, most times) and having lots of kids. The two might be connected by having a low desire to climb socially and not being very competitive. It might be a successful strategy. Its “success” might actually be improved if colleges keep discriminating against white men.

    There’s also inequality caused by family size correlating negatively with income (and maybe with wealth, but that probably reverses high up, at least for men. And maybe women. Selection within social classes should favor fertility, ceteris paribus. So, maybe class boundaries hardening will lead to increasing fertility in the middle+ classes. Harder class boundaries mean smart people don’t move up, so the lower classes probably get smarter too. This could be a big reason why caste-like societies are so stable.

    Changing topics, selection causing inequality gives us a “meme” (not in the funny picture sense) for some jui-jutsu against the woke borg.

    [MORE]

    Eugenics is a tool for increasing equality in future generations. It is the One True Way to equity. When embryo/germ cell sequencing and selection improve to the point a couple can make 15 embryos and select their favorite, there’s no overwhelming* ethical objection to eugenics.

    There are still practical problems. Should the government regulate what you can select for? Like, if I get an embryo that is +4σ for both IQ and sociopathy, is that ok? We won’t like what the current reigning woke would allow people to select for. Would you let people select for religiosity? Would you let Muslims living in America choose to make their kids fanatics? What would underclass parents want in their kids? I mean, have you seen The Wire?

    Then there’s the matter of composition. If everyone chose super-high extraversión, we’d lose introspection, which would come at a cost. Because liberal and conservative are personality types, each tribe would select kids who fit their tribe’s ideals, hardening social divisions. If everyone were more introverted, that’d be a problem, too,

    Do you know how people always say “x is a religion” for all kinds of (usually prog) ideologies? Could we test that GWAS? Like, the alleles causing depression also cause anxiety, but there’s almost no overlap with the genes that cause bipolar. I wonder if the alleles that make people more religious overlap a lot with the sets of alleles that cause communists, socialists, or environmentalism.

    * I don’t think the problems with eugenics are overwhelming, but that’s the consensus.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Rob


    I highly recommend reading that section. Giving TGTONS a read is probably a good idea for evolutionary biologists, though I have not done so. I really suggest reading the Social Selection of Fertility section.
     
    What is TGTONS?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

  104. @AnotherDad
    @Pixo


    Edu being selected against more strongly than IQ is also seen in US and Icelandic data.

    These dysgenic trends are primarily being driven by selection on women. For example, you can see the fattest and shortest group is being selected for. That’s not from men.

    Selection against IQ is most strong in African American women.
     

    Thanks Pixo. This is exactly what I've seen in the data again and again and again.

    The negative IQ selection is close to 100% (maybe 90%) driven by women and through educational attainment.

    Smart men's fertility is "dragged down" by their tendency to marry smart educated women (often with only a brief fertility window left). But higher IQ men's own superior achievement and capability is fertility positive--i.e. they are more attractive to women and better at talking to and appealling to women--and eugenic. The result of these two effects is a fairly flat fertility/IQ distribution for men.

    And yeah, this really pummels black women. They want white-picket-fence families. But black men are poor at providing that. And educated black men are fewer in number and have the outside-the-race-option. The result is a lot of childless educated black women, while their "sistas" in the hood are getting knocked up by the players--driving a consistent disgenic trend in American blacks. This is somewhat offset by the inflow of white genes. But the white women submitting to this are not in general top of the line.

    ~~

    Summary from the data i've seen:
    Educational attainment off the table (held steady), IQ is probably neutral or even slightly fertility positive.
    Women's educational attainment off the table (held steady), male IQ is mildly fertility positive.

    The essence of the issue is smart women tend to stay in school a long time, then want to have "careers" and end up really constricting their marriage-and-successful-child-bearing window. And smart men get sucked down with them.

    Replies: @Anon, @Pixo

    Very good summary. On the positive, white US fertility has improved to roughly neutral now compared to dysgenic during the whole 20th century.

    Delayed fertility among the high IQ however has a double-negative not captured by TFR: population expands slower and high parental age is dysgenic for both sexes. This may be a reason why polygamous Islam is so dysgenic. You end up with several dysgenic trends:

    1. Men over 60 with degraded sperm reproducing with 2nd 3rd 4th wives
    2. The resulting woman shortage leading to middling men needing to delay marriage to focus on improving economic and social status.
    3. The resulting woman shortage meaning the lowest 5% of women still find husbands.
    4. More inbreeding as men make their daughters marry their nephews who can’t otherwise find wives.

    The blending of the white lower class is creating a bi and triracial non-white permanent lower class that sits above pure blacks and about the same as immigrant mestizos and pardos. The resulting smaller purely white population could well be increasing in genotypic IQ. I think this has happened already in Mexico, where the best of the indian population boiled up into the main mestizo population along with the lower part of the white population. Thus I think the genotypic IQ difference between pure whites and Indians is larger than in 1491.

  105. @Rob
    Steve,
    I left a comment a few months ago about RA Fishers’s Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (pdf) On pg 256-283 by pdf numbering (228 by page number) the father of Mendelian-based evolutionary biology lays out the most important theory in social science.

    The gist is that in a meritocracy (or free market) that allows people to rise and fall in socioeconomic status over generations, the sort of parents who have enough on the ball to get their kids set up to rise have to spend a lot of money per kid. So, it ends up that the higher classes are genetically predisposed to have fewer children and invest more in each. This goes on until things fall apart.

    I highly recommend reading that section. Giving TGTONS a read is probably a good idea for evolutionary biologists, though I have not done so. I really suggest reading the Social Selection of Fertility section.

    It suggests that our old meritocracy, where smart kids from the working class and even some from the lower classes got free k-12, then took the SAT and went to college for, by today’s standards nearly for free before entering a career might have been the best way to run a meritocracy.

    Very interestingly, SSoF theory implies that there might be a lot of talent in the lower classes that goes with high fertility. The strategy would be being smart (smart has more advantages than costs, most times) and having lots of kids. The two might be connected by having a low desire to climb socially and not being very competitive. It might be a successful strategy. Its “success” might actually be improved if colleges keep discriminating against white men.

    There’s also inequality caused by family size correlating negatively with income (and maybe with wealth, but that probably reverses high up, at least for men. And maybe women. Selection within social classes should favor fertility, ceteris paribus. So, maybe class boundaries hardening will lead to increasing fertility in the middle+ classes. Harder class boundaries mean smart people don’t move up, so the lower classes probably get smarter too. This could be a big reason why caste-like societies are so stable.

    Changing topics, selection causing inequality gives us a “meme” (not in the funny picture sense) for some jui-jutsu against the woke borg.

    Eugenics is a tool for increasing equality in future generations. It is the One True Way to equity. When embryo/germ cell sequencing and selection improve to the point a couple can make 15 embryos and select their favorite, there’s no overwhelming* ethical objection to eugenics.

    There are still practical problems. Should the government regulate what you can select for? Like, if I get an embryo that is +4σ for both IQ and sociopathy, is that ok? We won’t like what the current reigning woke would allow people to select for. Would you let people select for religiosity? Would you let Muslims living in America choose to make their kids fanatics? What would underclass parents want in their kids? I mean, have you seen The Wire?

    Then there’s the matter of composition. If everyone chose super-high extraversión, we’d lose introspection, which would come at a cost. Because liberal and conservative are personality types, each tribe would select kids who fit their tribe’s ideals, hardening social divisions. If everyone were more introverted, that’d be a problem, too,

    Do you know how people always say “x is a religion” for all kinds of (usually prog) ideologies? Could we test that GWAS? Like, the alleles causing depression also cause anxiety, but there’s almost no overlap with the genes that cause bipolar. I wonder if the alleles that make people more religious overlap a lot with the sets of alleles that cause communists, socialists, or environmentalism.

    * I don’t think the problems with eugenics are overwhelming, but that’s the consensus.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    I highly recommend reading that section. Giving TGTONS a read is probably a good idea for evolutionary biologists, though I have not done so. I really suggest reading the Social Selection of Fertility section.

    What is TGTONS?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Anonymous


    What is TGTONS?
     
    The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. It's the book in the link.
  106. @Anonymous
    @Rob


    I highly recommend reading that section. Giving TGTONS a read is probably a good idea for evolutionary biologists, though I have not done so. I really suggest reading the Social Selection of Fertility section.
     
    What is TGTONS?

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    What is TGTONS?

    The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. It’s the book in the link.

  107. @Corvinus
    @Hypnotoad666

    "Nah, that silly little blog post basically says nothing. It just notes that you can use different definitions if you want and that sometimes environments can change"

    Staying something is silly does not make it so. What specifically do you disagree with the source? Why? Furthermore, when there are competing definitions, there is the likelihood of subjective application when offering conclusions to a study.

    "The basis of the R-K selection theory is true by definition — I.e., in order to pass on the same number of genes while having fewer progeny per year, an organism must live longer and invest more in its progeny to ensure that they can repeat this K-strategy process. To the extent the K-strategy works, genes will be selected accordingly."

    It is how the theory is applied, not necessarily the theory itself.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    In application, whites have fewer kids later and treat them like hothouse flowers in the hope that they’ll secure jobs and own their own residences during their fertile years and feel comfortable enough to produce grandchildren.

    Blacks, r-selection:

    Speciation.

  108. @Anon
    @AnotherDad

    You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I can tell you got your perspective of the world from spending your evenings clipping coupons off the backs of cereal boxes. Smart men don't go for women of their IQ level, they tend to prefer women beneath them. I'm about to educate your clueless ass:


    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/why-do-smart-men-date-less-intelligent-women/348592/

    Smart women are just genetic dead ends. They never reproduce with anyone, their only hope of letting is to hire a homeless man to fuck 'em. It's the "golden mean" women who are slightly above average intelligence, and from middle class backgrounds, who bag the smart guys.

    Also, high IQ isn't eugenic, it's often the result of genetic disorders hanging in the balance, like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs. Fringe populations are never eugenic whether they be on the left or right side of the bell curve. Eugenic is somewhere in the golden middle, where the genetic diversity is.

    How clueless can you be? Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that's usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness. That's more of a problem for smart women than smart men.

    Now shine my shoes, you stinky wetback.

    Replies: @Pixo

    “ like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs”

    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage. An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Pixo

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    E.g., Richard Feynman, legit genius, Ashkenazi Jew, at age 70:

    https://i.imgur.com/QdSDv6P.jpg

    He developed a really aggressive form of cancer long past his youthful prime, but cancer seems to be the price we pay for bodies that repair themselves.

    , @Anon
    @Pixo


    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage.
     
    No they are not. They causally account for most of their average verbal IQ.

    An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.
     
    Extremely retarded reasoning. The mutations linked to Crohn's and Tay Sachs account for the majority of the verbal IQ differences in Jews.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.
     

    Yes, and the relationship is not linear. Since you weren't able to comprehend that the first time, let me say it again: above average IQ is associated with better health and physical attractiveness. High IQ is not. Above average IQ is 100-115. High IQ is +125. Once you cross the high IQ threshold, health and physical attractiveness begin to revert to the left end of bell curve.
  109. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @martin_2



    In modern Western nations, having a lot of children is a marker of “low status” for strivers which populate the bulk of our culture-making institutions. This is perhaps an expression of the life script which strivers have followed – “post-graduate education and career first, one point three children after we’ve ‘made it’…
     
    Are there really people dumb enough think like this. I ask in a spirit of honest enquiry. (Sort of.)

    I think there are people – both sexes – for whom having children is really important, and people for whom it is not. Surely no-one is going to concern themselves with “status” when it comes to having kids.
     
    Part of it is probably sour grapes of younger people who have hit their thirties and didn't have children at all or who didn't have the number of children which they would have had given their druthers (economic and biological). Women who have had zero or one child likely have some cognitive dissonance (and many may have had abortions), so the way to resolve it is to propose that they really wanted zero or only one child anyway. They would then ridicule people with large families in order to fool oneself and others into the belief that the resultant family situation was the result of choice rather than a failure, while counseling other younger women to delay or deny childbearing because misery loves company. Other people imitating your life script validates it.

    I think having children is an abiding interest for the overwhelming majority of people. The spread between people who in their heart of hearts want children and the people who have children is probably large - lots of people now don't have children or as many children as they really want. People who don't want children are probably aberrations - they're represented well beyond their share of the population in media and in public life. By way of example, the situation comedy Seinfeld was about a core of four self-absorbed singleton thirty-somethings in Manhattan living empty lives, none of whom had or particularly wanted children. However, all four of the actors who portrayed these characters had at the time or now have multiple children each. The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    The other issue is probably overproduction of elites - there are fewer great opportunities today than there were in the past, and being a candidate for, say, acceptance to Harvard or Stanford is much more competitive and reliant less on raw general intelligence and more upon a student resume that demonstrates all of the class shibboleths. So if these people want their one point three children to achieve the same or higher status as they, they reason that two higher status parents with dual incomes can invest more in one child than four children, and thereby increase the likelihood of having a kid in Harvard or Stanford.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Problem with Midway

    Sour grapes is an important factor. Every old slut with herpes wants all younger and cuter White women to have it too. Every man-hating cat lady dies a little to see a loving White couple and their beautiful children. And these defective women are the ones who get tenure, are heard on mass media, and get their books published.

  110. @Pixo
    @Almost Missouri

    Western aid and charity is like 1% of SS African GDP.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Not sure where that figure is from. If you look at, e.g., the Wikipedia page for Development Assistance, which is only one kind of aid, you will see this graphic showing that in most SS African countries, this aid is a very substantial portion of the government budget. Indeed, in several countries the Development Assistance aid is more than double the entire government budget. Basically, the only SS African countries not severely dependent on aid are a few of the countries in South Africa’s economic cone.

    Even in the few SS African countries not obviously aid dependent, they get de facto aid under other names. I described one example here. Another example: Mark Zuckerberg visited Nigeria and “invested” \$24m in African “tech” company (actually an employment agency) Andela. Will that ever pay for itself? Probably not. But that wasn’t the point. The point was to be seen doing something for Africa. Another example: US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has a budget of \$275m or so, much of which is spent in Africa, yet none of that counts as “aid”.

    Note that much of Africa’s nominal GDP is the product of extractive industries, the revenue from which barely touches Africa before being deposited in the Swiss bank accounts of the elites or merely being cycled through the local accounts of foreign multinationals. Most Africans subsist on less than a dollar a day, so even in the rare cases where aid is apparently modest (and de facto aid is in reality larger than de jure aid), aid can still support a lot of Africans in a welfare condition. In other words, for less than a buck a day, you can make an African dependent on you. The West has made many Africans dependent on it. (Whether that was done cynically or from misplaced good intentions is beside the point.)

    But don’t take my word for it, heroic Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo wrote an entire book on the dire effect of foreign aid on Africa. Whatever you believe the aid figures to be, somehow it is enough to cripple Africa’s economy and plunge huge populations into economic dependency.

    • Replies: @Pixo
    @Almost Missouri

    The wiki article says Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.

    As to your question of how Africa can have big cities with very low labor productivity, my answer is that it is roughly self sufficient on food, and housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor. Beyond this explanation for food and housing, it has natural resource and speciality ag exports (chocolate, coffee, fresh produce to Saudi Arabia).

    This is also why I don’t think famine and disease will seriously dent African population growth. Most of black Africa is certainly very poor, but nowhere near starvation.

    Another way to look at it is that Niger isn’t in a major famine with per capita GDP of about $500. Far more populous Nigeria is at $2300, so even if it tripled in population without all the additional labor increasing GDP or subsistence agricultural production by even a penny, they still wouldn’t be starving.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  111. @Pixo
    @Anon

    “ like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs”

    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage. An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Anon

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    E.g., Richard Feynman, legit genius, Ashkenazi Jew, at age 70:

    He developed a really aggressive form of cancer long past his youthful prime, but cancer seems to be the price we pay for bodies that repair themselves.

  112. When the parasitic jobs in finance, education, HR, insurance, etc are gone, the educated women who hold them will be looking for sharp men who can actually do something productive. The guy from marketing will be scrambling to learn how to fix toilets, brew beer, or something else that will put food on his plate. The smart woman will learn to make herself useful again. Until then, stupidity reigns.

  113. @Almost Missouri
    @Pixo

    Not sure where that figure is from. If you look at, e.g., the Wikipedia page for Development Assistance, which is only one kind of aid, you will see this graphic showing that in most SS African countries, this aid is a very substantial portion of the government budget. Indeed, in several countries the Development Assistance aid is more than double the entire government budget. Basically, the only SS African countries not severely dependent on aid are a few of the countries in South Africa's economic cone.

    Even in the few SS African countries not obviously aid dependent, they get de facto aid under other names. I described one example here. Another example: Mark Zuckerberg visited Nigeria and "invested" $24m in African "tech" company (actually an employment agency) Andela. Will that ever pay for itself? Probably not. But that wasn't the point. The point was to be seen doing something for Africa. Another example: US Africa Command (AFRICOM) has a budget of $275m or so, much of which is spent in Africa, yet none of that counts as "aid".

    Note that much of Africa's nominal GDP is the product of extractive industries, the revenue from which barely touches Africa before being deposited in the Swiss bank accounts of the elites or merely being cycled through the local accounts of foreign multinationals. Most Africans subsist on less than a dollar a day, so even in the rare cases where aid is apparently modest (and de facto aid is in reality larger than de jure aid), aid can still support a lot of Africans in a welfare condition. In other words, for less than a buck a day, you can make an African dependent on you. The West has made many Africans dependent on it. (Whether that was done cynically or from misplaced good intentions is beside the point.)

    But don't take my word for it, heroic Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo wrote an entire book on the dire effect of foreign aid on Africa. Whatever you believe the aid figures to be, somehow it is enough to cripple Africa's economy and plunge huge populations into economic dependency.

    Replies: @Pixo

    The wiki article says Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.

    As to your question of how Africa can have big cities with very low labor productivity, my answer is that it is roughly self sufficient on food, and housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor. Beyond this explanation for food and housing, it has natural resource and speciality ag exports (chocolate, coffee, fresh produce to Saudi Arabia).

    This is also why I don’t think famine and disease will seriously dent African population growth. Most of black Africa is certainly very poor, but nowhere near starvation.

    Another way to look at it is that Niger isn’t in a major famine with per capita GDP of about \$500. Far more populous Nigeria is at \$2300, so even if it tripled in population without all the additional labor increasing GDP or subsistence agricultural production by even a penny, they still wouldn’t be starving.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Pixo


    Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.
     
    This is why I wrote the third paragraph in my previous comment. The national GDP is largely an artifact of elite looting and multinational transfer pricing. It is irrelevant to most Africans. Most SS Africans live on less than a dollar a day. Whatever financial games elites and foreigners are doing in coastal cities plays no role in their life.

    When you are a subsistence farmer, as almost half of Africans are, you can effectively live on zero dollars per day, because of the subsistence part of subsistence farming. But now SS Africa is half "urban", i.e., mostly shantytowns ringing something like a city ("housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor", as you put it). Those several hundred million people are not subsistence farmers. They produce no food, nor much else. They are dependent on getting food, whether from imports, from the vast outback of subsistence farmers, or from aid programs.

    Essentially, there is now a several hundred-million-strong reserve army of shantytown proletariat ringing major SS Africans cities. Per head, they are not very expensive to feed, but then that's how they got to be so numerous in the first place. In r-selection, the mouths just keep increasing to the limit of available sustenance. In a subsistence agricultural environment, this is self-regulating, but since the age of international aid has dawned, the West has been carelessly increasing the sustenance, fostering a vast underclass of landless dependents, heedless that at some point a limit will reached.

    Several hundred million landless shantytown proletariat can be fed for several dozen billion dollars per year. By coincidence, that is about the size of Western aid to SS Africa.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

  114. The study only looked at white people.

    Shades of The Bell Curve. At least the first 13 chapters.

    It’s long been recognized that more educated women tend to have fewer children, which, all else being equal, would lead to dysgenics.

    There is some infill, though, with certain certain segments of the more-educated– or just smarter– population having large families, on principle.

    This suggests that while the “smart fraction” may be shrinking, it is improving. Externally dysgenic, eugenic internally. Browse any Catholic or evangelical bookstore and count the kids in the author bios. “Dynamic Catholic” Matthew Kelly, for instance, has five.

    Let the irresponsible smart set cull itself on the streets of Kenosha. We play the long game.

  115. Sorry to say but most isteve readers don’t have a clue what’s coming down the line. I’m a single, working class dad raising boys on my own without any help and doing a pretty decent job of it if I do say so myself. The norm is much worse.

    The quality of parenting is so bad on the balance that there’s no way we’re going to have a functional society in 20 years. If you think teachers can make up for it well I don’t know what to say.

    I’m not talking about minorities, either. White famies in the US have been shattered. Charles Murray was right.

    Sure, you can put your kids in a good position, and I’m making every effort to do so for mine. But I look around and nobody else is. At least not in my class.

    What I see is women leaching off welfare, cheating at every opportunity. Young men instinctively avoiding commitment because they don’t want to be chained down with no benefits or promises. Children held back for fictitious disabilities. Perfectly normal 7yo kids who can’t read because mom doesn’t want to bother.

    This is a disaster in the making made much worse by the COVID lockdowns.

    If there’s any silver lining, it’s that we now have a very robust white underclass that will naturally resist displacement by minorities due to its own severe dysfunction.

    So that’s great! Now we can live like eastern Europeans!

    • Thanks: J.Ross, Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Bill P

    we now have a very robust white underclass that will naturally resist displacement by minorities due to its own severe dysfunction.

    Do we? I would say we are creating a white underclass that can’t really think in abstract terms like “white identity “ and is much more amenable to interbreeding with blacks and latinos than in the past, especially as the cultural distinctions between these groups are eroding and behavioural norms are converging.

  116. Steve Sailer:

    “On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids”

    I don’t think so. because you are not taking into consideration something very important: the *interest* in having kids. Highly intelligent men are usually less interested in having kids. Many intellectuals and geniuses were childless. Isaac Newton comes to mind. And a highly intelligent man is far more likely to use birth control like condoms and to be aware of the severe social consequences of having kids, such as being forced to pay allimony if they get some chick knocked up.

    One of the interesting things is the relationship between fertility on the one hand, and intelligence and longevity on the other. There is a strong negative correlation between the two traits and fertility. Asa general rule, there is an inverse relation between age of puberty and reproduction and both intelligence and longevity.

    For instance, you might be surprised to know this, but children of older people, contrary to popular belief, tend to be remarkably healthier than children from young parents. People focus on the risks of older parenthood due to germline mutations, such as an increased tendency towards autism and Down’s Syndrome.

    But many people are not aware that a lot of germline mutations that happens as people get older are designed not to handicap children, but to *increase* the long-term health and longevity of the children of older parents. Why? Because by breeding at an older age, you are signaling that environment is hard and that early reproduction is not possible, and that therefore more durable bodies with better repair capacities are needed since reproduction can only be achieved at an old age.

    If you read the works of Michael Rose, the *classic* way to prlong the lifespan of species is to only allow them to mate and breed after 90% of their lifespan is done. This process, repeated after many generation, more than doubles the average lifespan of flies and mice.

    For instance, one of the most important measures of lifespan and health, especially immune health, is leucocyte telomere length. Telomeres get shorter and shorter as you age, and when they reach an average length of around 4 kilobases, your cells achieve replicative senescence. This creates a state known as “crisis” which is characterized by chronic inflammation, apoptosis(cell death) and stem cell exhaustion. Death comes shortly after your cells have reached that critical threshold, which for Humans is around ages 70 to 90.

    Well, children from older fathers have *longer* telomeres than children from young fathers, and greater potential for longevity. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619950/
    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1202092109
    Why? Because the enzyme that elongates telomeres, telomerase, is active in spermatogonial sperm cells but not in somatic cells. So, as men get older, the telomeres of their sperm cells get longer instead of getting shorter, and the kids inherit the longer telomeres. The telomeres of sperm cells get longer as the men ages on purpose, since an older age of repdoduction requires a longer lifespan, so longer telomeres are needed on stem cells and immune cells to allow for the children of those men to reach an advanced age to reproduce. While it’s true that negative germline mutations increase with age, several genetic adapations designed to prolong the lifespan of offspring also happens, and the children of older parents are actually remarkably healthy. Here is one of the oldest dads in Britain. His little son is not only remarkably healthy, but blood testing of the boy revealed unusually high levels of HDL-c, related to superior cardiovascular health and longevity, especially in males:https://youtu.be/nu_UquJUg8Y

    Another fact: they tested Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians in Hawaii. They found out that the most common genetic polymoprphism related to longevity is a single nucleotide polymprphism of a gene called FOXO3. This gene is related to antioxidant defenses, glucose metabolism, apoptosis of cancer cells and DNA damage response signaling. The longevity allele of this SNP replaces the typical adenine by a guanine. The SNP is rs2802292. The guanine increases the binding of the gene promoter to the target genes by over 4 X compared to the adenine. Here is where it gets really interesting: they found that the Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians that were homozygotes for the “G” allele of this gene had another thing in common besides being homozygotes for this allele: they were almost all the children of women that were at least 30 years of age and fathers that were at least 40 years of age when they were conceived. Conversely, the children of young parents under 25 were almost universally homozygotes for the “A” or typical allele, associated with a shorter lifespan. People that were heterozygotes for the SNP(“GA”) were the children of parents with variable ages, and had an intermediate lifespan.

    [MORE]

    This goes back to Darwin’s theory of Evolution, which states that the effort that the body will make in repairing itself depends on how essential the body is for reproduction. Having children at a younger age means that less genetic effort and resources are needed to be invested in maintaining the body, since it doesn’t need to last for long for it to achieve the goal of reproduction, which is what bodies are desinge for in the first place. All long-lived species like bowhead whales, parrots and giant turtles have in common a low extrinsic mortality which allows for reproduction at older ages. Species that suffer heavy parasite infections or predation, like mice, are short lives and reach sexual maturity very fast.

    Another big mystery of Human evolution is the persistence of the APOE4 allele. The Apolipoprotein E &4 allele is the ancestral allele that Humans inherited from our ape-like ancestors. From the point of view of health and longevity, it is absolute catastrophe. You inherit one copy from mom and another from dad. If you have one copy of APOE4, you have 5 X the odds of Alzheimer’s by age 65, and about 2 X the odds of cardiovascular disease. Conversely, if you inherit two copies, you have 5 X the oddss of cardiovascular disease and up to 30 X the chance of having Alzheimer’s by age 65. In fact, being homozygote for APOE4 is almost guaranteed that you will be completely demented at 70. Here a woman explains the catastrophe when she found out that she is a homozygote for APOE4. Both her parents wrre completely demented in their sixties:

    so why does this disastrous gene allele persists in relatively high amount in modern Human populations? We have some clues based on the most common allele, APOE3. The APOE3 allele, which now predominates in all Human populations, is a recent evolutionary mutation of the past 200,000 years that seems to have evolved to increase lifespan, especially of the brain. This comes at the cost of a diminished resistence to parasitical infections and latter ages of puberty. The APOE3 replaces a cytosine for a thymine. This results in the arginine being replaced by a cysteine at the C-terminus of the gene. That has two major effects: first, it increases the shuffling of cholesterol into the brain. Secondly, it increases glucose transport through the brain-blood barrier, and third, it increases GATA expression and autophagy in the brain. The thing is extremely complex, but this subtle chnege in a single amino acid has extremely dramatic effects on the way that the protein functions. APOE4 brains have higher levels of inflammation and oxidative stress(free radicals), and accumulate “garbage” like amyloid plaques and neurofillament tangles. Basically, APOE4 brains are built for a “fast life strategy”, while APOE3 evolved as Humasn left Africa and required longer lifespans to raise children when parental investment was more needed.

    So why does APOE4 persist if it so catastrophic for health, especially for brain health? Again, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Evolution doesn’t care about health and longevity;i it cares about breeding. Health and longevity are tools to an end(reproduction), not the end itself. If you have a gene that makes you more fertile at 30 but makes you demented at 60, Evolution doesn’t care. By age 60 or even age 40, your brain is no longer required for you to breed, so the gene that makes you more fertile but makes your brain rot will be selected for.

    It has now been proven that women that carry at least one APOE4 allele have higher levels of progesterone, which is one of the most important female sex hormones. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345437/ Not only that, they enter puberty at a younger age, and are more likely to have the “hourglass” figure. That makes them highly attractive to men, which is one of the ways that this bad allele persists. By being less effective at transporting fats and cholesterol into the brain, it makes fats and cholesterol more available to the body, resulting in higher levels of sex hormones and fertility, as well as more fats and cholesterol for the growing baby. Not only that, APOE4 increases the peripheral burtning of fat, which results in a greater resilience to ifections when you are young, at the cost of shorter durability of the immune system. That is, this horrific gene persists because it helps women make more babies, everything else be damned.

    If you look at the geographic distribution of APOE4, it persists most strongly in northern Europe and in central Africa. What does these two regions have in common? In a word? harshness. In central Africa, infections like Malaria are a real problem. In northern Europe, the scarcity of sunlight and food is also historically a problem. APOE4 increases levels of cholesterol which increases levels of vitamin D, E and K and makes women more likely to give birth in cold areas where sunlight and food is less abundant. About 23% of all notherrn europeans and their descendants have at least one copy of APOE4. Conversely, in southern Europe, where sunlight and food are more abundant while still having a relatively low parasite burden, APOE4 is much rarer at around 7%. In fact, in Sardinmia and the Basque country it is as low as 2%. If you are of northern European origin, like so many white Americans, there is roughly a 1 in 4 chance that you have at least 1 copy of APOE4. Having an Italian grandmother is the best news you could have for your cardiovascular and brain health since Italians are almost universally APOE3 or APOE2(a rare and even healthier version of the gene). But not every white American has an Italian or Spanish grandmother and thus most white Americans should check their APOE genotype. However, APOE determination, unlike checking your FOXO3 genotype for rs2802292, is extremely difficult and requires deep knowledge of genetics because it requires careful examination of multiple gene locuses. This is the kind of thing you want a professional geneticist to check. The classic method is to use rs429358. Having a “t” there means that you are APOE3, while having a “C” means you have APOE4. TT is APOE3/3, TC is APO3/4 and CC is APO4/4. But rs429358 is just an imperfect proxy, and many people that are C or even CC there are actually APOE3/3 homozygotes. This is why you should check with a professional geneticist. PhDs at other fields of biology like professors of molecular biology and medicine can also determine this for you easily. But don’t ask your molecuolar biologist friend to check your genome for you because most would not want to risk giving you a heart attack by confirming that you truly have one or two arginines at the C-terminus of your Apolipoprotein E instead of one or two cysteines. Not everyone is cool with being the harbors of terrible news, especially to friends.

    • Thanks: BB753
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Zero Philosopher

    Thanks, man, now I know what I'll be talking about on my next date.

    "So, babe, did you know older men's telomeres are longer?"

    "Telo-what?"

    "Just prepare for pregnancy, I'll explain later..."

    Replies: @Bill P

    , @BB753
    @Zero Philosopher

    BTW, is it likely that actor Bruce Willis is a homozygote for APOE4, thus explaining his "aphasia", i.e. Alzheimer's?

  117. @YetAnotherAnon
    OT - this Guardian piece illustrates the ancient alpha/beta dichotomy and the more modern "sleep with guys and get a book out of it" phenomenon. Not to mention a nasty case of TDS.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/aug/13/young-man-rebooted-sex-life-dating-app

    "The move home to London was preceded by Donald Trump being elected to office around the time my divorce was filed, around the time I turned 40. His disgust at middle-aged women, and the palpable loathing he and his wife exuded when pictured together, alchemised a feeling I’d been marinating: having been sexually active since the age of 16, I wanted to walk away from it all. On reaching an age when women have to contort themselves, physically and emotionally, to keep getting “chosen for the team”, it felt freeing to say, “I’m not playing.” Don’t you dare judge me for my bikini body – just let me be the ocean.

    So, from the moment Trump was inaugurated, I’d stopped having sex and kissing and holding hands, and swore not to relent until he was gone. "

     

    Did she feel bad that, at least in the mythos of his enemies, Donald Trump would no longer find her attractive?

    A friend told me I had been on the wrong dating app. I let her sign me up to hers and connected with I guess who I was meant to connect with algorithmically: a divorced dad in his 50s. He was successful, well dressed, had all of his own hair and teeth. I was furious about having to go and meet him. The night before we met, he’d sent a long letter about how he’d ordered my memoir and read it in one go, and all the ways it had moved him. Just because I’d published a memoir didn’t mean I wanted people to read it before a first date. On meeting him in the park, I was not bored or awkward and I accepted he was, on paper, a good match. I agreed to a second date. But the idea of having sex with him made me cry for the entire cab ride home.

     

    He bought her book, read it all the way through, and gave her positive feedback. What a loser!

    This is the way to do it:

    We wrote back and forth, and it was easy. I’ll call him “Q” as he was a clever, fussy Englishman as opposed to Bond suave. Q made me smile and sometimes laugh. I liked his profile picture a lot, in which he grinned beside a stabled horse. I enjoyed talking to him enough that I mentioned him to Ben, who studied the profile picture and approved.

    “Clever boy: he’s telling the world he’s got a big cock.”

    “He is not saying that! He’s telling the world that he likes animals.”

    “No,” said my ex-husband, in the same decisive tone he’d use as he handed a bewildered grocery store worker an orange he considered overripe.
     
    But there's a snake in every paradise:

    One morning, we woke in a hotel room overlooking a charming garden, watching the rain like cats. I felt quite calm. The Covid vaccine rollout had finally reached Q’s age group.

    He sighed. “In the first lockdown, every girl I’d ever dated wanted phone sex and to send me nudes. It was overwhelming. I could have opened a gallery. I wouldn’t – that would be revenge porn. But I eventually stopped looking. I had sex with so many women at the start of the pandemic, it’s like the Band Aid song: I couldn’t tell you who did which part.”

    I could recoil at his sangfroid all I liked, but that did not undo last night’s multiple orgasm. Internally, I recoiled. I knew who sang each line of that song. Of course – this was generational. What was new frontier for a woman in her 40s was yesterday’s repetitive news to a man in his 20s.
     
    I wonder where her daughter's staying meanwhile?

    I felt very sad once I accepted that I was falling in love with Q and that he was not particularly available to me. So I did what men often do when they’re overwhelmed by the feeling of being blown away by a woman. They have a one-night stand with someone new.

     

    That's right. Because all the men who are visible to her - the kind of guys who lose count of their women - can do that whenever they wish - just as she can.

    "This is an edited extract from Busy Being Free by Emma Forrest (Orion Publishing Co, £18.99)"
     

    Replies: @Kylie

    As Wikipedia helpfully informs us:
    “She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder.”

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
    • LOL: duncsbaby
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Kylie

    I see. I hadn't realised quite what a case she was, or her history of A-list men - no wonder the idea of sleeping with Mr 50-something Nice Guy made her cry.

    I'm sure some recently divorced Guardian readers (who haven't been out with Colin Farrell) will take her writing seriously and act on it.

    "Forrest wrote a memoir, Your Voice in My Head (2011), concerning the death of her psychiatrist and her subsequent break-up with her partner."

    Still, there are compensations...

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/14/men-have-better-sex-with-emotionally-unstable-women/

    Replies: @Rob McX

    , @duncsbaby
    @Kylie

    Cut to the chase.

  118. @Kylie
    @YetAnotherAnon

    As Wikipedia helpfully informs us:
    "She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder."

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @duncsbaby

    I see. I hadn’t realised quite what a case she was, or her history of A-list men – no wonder the idea of sleeping with Mr 50-something Nice Guy made her cry.

    I’m sure some recently divorced Guardian readers (who haven’t been out with Colin Farrell) will take her writing seriously and act on it.

    “Forrest wrote a memoir, Your Voice in My Head (2011), concerning the death of her psychiatrist and her subsequent break-up with her partner.”

    Still, there are compensations…

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/14/men-have-better-sex-with-emotionally-unstable-women/

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @YetAnotherAnon


    Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women.
     
    As long as they give them false contact details and make sure they don't follow them home.
  119. @Anon
    @The Alarmist

    The highest casualty rates in world war II were in elite units like the submariners and the Air Force. Real dumbasses were sent to rear area logistical support units.

    Replies: @Mark G.

    The highest casualty rates in world war II were in elite units like the submariners and the Air Force. Real dumbasses were sent to rear area logistical support units.

    My grandfather had a PhD in entomology, the study of insects. In World War II he was put to work on a program eradicating mosquitos to slow the spread of malaria among the soldiers on various Pacific islands. It was probably a lot less dangerous trying to kill mosquitos than trying to kill Japs so that was a rare instance where being really smart helped to keep you out of harm’s way.

  120. @Kylie
    @YetAnotherAnon

    As Wikipedia helpfully informs us:
    "She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder."

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @duncsbaby

    Cut to the chase.

  121. @kaganovitch
    @Peter Akuleyev

    It may well be that providing poorer people with even more toys/distractions, higher basic income and access to cheap birth control could reduce fertility.

    Socialism hasn't been tried hard enough. Now, there's an idea!

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    Socialism is not about giving people free consumer goods, it is handing them ownership of the means of production. We have now gotten so good at producing things we have made a large percentage of the population effectively surplus to requirements. Socialism’s only answer to that is to produce less efficiently, which is stupid. Unfortunately modern capitalism alsomfails to address this situation adequately because the market rewards selling to consumers. Therefore large businesses look at all these useless people with mouths to feed as sources of revenue and encourage governments to produce more of them – whether through immigration or traditional reproduction.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  122. @Bill P
    Sorry to say but most isteve readers don't have a clue what's coming down the line. I'm a single, working class dad raising boys on my own without any help and doing a pretty decent job of it if I do say so myself. The norm is much worse.

    The quality of parenting is so bad on the balance that there's no way we're going to have a functional society in 20 years. If you think teachers can make up for it well I don't know what to say.

    I'm not talking about minorities, either. White famies in the US have been shattered. Charles Murray was right.

    Sure, you can put your kids in a good position, and I'm making every effort to do so for mine. But I look around and nobody else is. At least not in my class.

    What I see is women leaching off welfare, cheating at every opportunity. Young men instinctively avoiding commitment because they don't want to be chained down with no benefits or promises. Children held back for fictitious disabilities. Perfectly normal 7yo kids who can't read because mom doesn't want to bother.

    This is a disaster in the making made much worse by the COVID lockdowns.

    If there's any silver lining, it's that we now have a very robust white underclass that will naturally resist displacement by minorities due to its own severe dysfunction.

    So that's great! Now we can live like eastern Europeans!

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    we now have a very robust white underclass that will naturally resist displacement by minorities due to its own severe dysfunction.

    Do we? I would say we are creating a white underclass that can’t really think in abstract terms like “white identity “ and is much more amenable to interbreeding with blacks and latinos than in the past, especially as the cultural distinctions between these groups are eroding and behavioural norms are converging.

  123. Anon[209] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pixo
    @Anon

    “ like in Ashkenazi Jews who derive their higher IQ from genes linked to Tay Sachs”

    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage. An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Anon

    These mutations are only a small part of the AJ IQ advantage.

    No they are not. They causally account for most of their average verbal IQ.

    An interesting GWAS study trained on non-Jewish Wisconsin whites to find IQ enhancing SNPs. They they founds AJs have a higher share of these same genes than the training set of non-Jews. In other words, AJs and non-AJ whites have the same basic set of IQ genes. By contrast, using IQ SNPs from whites and applying them to Africans does not work very well.

    Extremely retarded reasoning. The mutations linked to Crohn’s and Tay Sachs account for the majority of the verbal IQ differences in Jews.

    “ Smarter men are also horrible at talking to women (that’s usually a dumbass and/or fag trait) and generally repulsive to them physically, as higher-than-above average IQ is associated with unattractiveness.”

    Nope, IQ is correlated with physical attractiveness and general good health.

    Yes, and the relationship is not linear. Since you weren’t able to comprehend that the first time, let me say it again: above average IQ is associated with better health and physical attractiveness. High IQ is not. Above average IQ is 100-115. High IQ is +125. Once you cross the high IQ threshold, health and physical attractiveness begin to revert to the left end of bell curve.

  124. @Anonymous
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.
     
    They wound up wanting them, or they wound up having them? Didn’t you just write that they all had them?

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    The quintessential childless singles of the 1990s all wound up wanting kids in the real world.

    They wound up wanting them, or they wound up having them? Didn’t you just write that they all had them?

    I thought this was clear but the four actors who played the core Seinfeld characters – none of whom expressed a desire for marriage and children but expressed opposite sentiments with regard to peripheral characters’ children – either had children while working on the show or came to have children after the show’s run. I’m presuming that because they had them with their then spouses that they wanted the children.

  125. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @SFG

    Actually, Steve has at least one son, but I don't like to talk about anyone's family unless they bring it up.

    And, yes, I'd suspect that your average griller-con CivNat would have more kids than progressives who almost certainly have the lowest fertility rate among whites.

    Now that I think about it, ethnocentrism can't be a sufficient trait to guarantee a higher birthrate. If it was, Japan, China and South Korea wouldn't have such abysmal fertility rates.

    Feminism and living in cities seem to be the kiss of death for fertility rates. But having no pride in your people - or even believing in a people - doesn't help either. Why have expensive and time-consuming kids if everyone is just the same.

    But nature always wins. Feminism and colorblind civic nationalism are failed experiments that will die out over the next few generations.

    Replies: @SFG

    He’s talked about them a few times, but you are right, bad example.

    I mean, lots of conservatives in the USA are ethnonationalists, and lots of conservatives have big families, but I don’t see a huge correlation. The ones who have big families, to the extent I can see a pattern, seem to be religious, particularly Catholic.

    I think colorblind civic nationalism may Well collapse due to the prisoner’s dilemma problem that a group that demands special privileges will outcompete one that doesn’t. But whatever the success of their ideology, the normiecons seem to be successful at having kids at least.

  126. @AnotherDad
    @SFG


    You could make some crack about not wanting quarter-Jews running around, but I’d probably also be too busy to post here. So, you know, tradeoffs. 😉
     
    Quarter Jews sound great. Jewish genes should have been mixed in from the get go. Jews should never have been allowed to exist as a separate tribe in the West. It's a general rule: separate tribes just cause trouble.

    But if you want to keep it at "half", I can send you my niece's email ('bout time for her to get serious about such matters).

    (Marry a Jewish woman? What am I, a masochist? I’m not Stephen Miller to get one of the few right wing ones.)
     
    And a babe. Considering Miller--terrific guy--is not exactly the most handsome Jewish dude ... he scored on all counts.

    The great thing is the Internet has opened up an endless supply of options.

    My suggestion, leap in. Don't settle until you've found one who is both compatible and "based" and really wants to be a wife and mother to your children--not just have a "relationship" for her facebook/instagram profile and her "special day". But the risks--drama and divorce rape--are far outweighed by the joy you'll take in having little SFGlets snuggling up to you for storytime, learning from you and later making their way in the world to carry on after you.

    Let you fish swim free!

    Replies: @SFG

    Thanks, man, quite flattering (though you really should find someone her age for your niece). It’s a particular combination of relatively weak game, relatively high income that may not persist over the next few decades (making an alimony settlement very dangerous), and a combo of personality traits that make a match difficult (women may be conservative or intellectual (not smart) but rarely both). Basically, there’s nobody who drives me nuts in a good way and the potential downside is huge, not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass. One master is enough, and in a few more years, I should be able to have none. I am not claiming it is ideal or a model for anyone.

    • Replies: @anon
    @SFG

    Relatively weak game, precarious attitude to future income, and a personality that cares about a woman's politics and intellect are all the same thing: you have low sexual confidence.

    Stay fit, keep the carbs down, walk like you're being tugged down the street by an invisible line attached to your erection, and for God's sake, stop caring about women's opinions. If you do all that, their opinions will neatly fall in line with yours. They cry out for a leader.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @SFG

    "not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass"

    If you find a girl who likes children and you can earn enough to keep her at home looking after them, she'll be pretty happy (and pretty tired). My wife took 10 years out of the workforce until our youngest was at high school.

    "the potential downside is huge"

    There are fewer than ever around, but find a girl whose parents are still married to each other.

  127. anon[216] • Disclaimer says:
    @SFG
    @AnotherDad

    Thanks, man, quite flattering (though you really should find someone her age for your niece). It’s a particular combination of relatively weak game, relatively high income that may not persist over the next few decades (making an alimony settlement very dangerous), and a combo of personality traits that make a match difficult (women may be conservative or intellectual (not smart) but rarely both). Basically, there’s nobody who drives me nuts in a good way and the potential downside is huge, not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass. One master is enough, and in a few more years, I should be able to have none. I am not claiming it is ideal or a model for anyone.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon

    Relatively weak game, precarious attitude to future income, and a personality that cares about a woman’s politics and intellect are all the same thing: you have low sexual confidence.

    Stay fit, keep the carbs down, walk like you’re being tugged down the street by an invisible line attached to your erection, and for God’s sake, stop caring about women’s opinions. If you do all that, their opinions will neatly fall in line with yours. They cry out for a leader.

  128. “…I hadn’t realised quite what a case she was…”

    Nor had I. Her sense of entitlement, irrationally and utter lack of decorum seem more like points on a continuum than discrete, diagnosable mental disorders.

    I’m sure the sex with her ilk is great for those men willing to TOFTT. But what about the rest of us? I had to go read some “Barrack Room Ballads” after reading her deluded blathering.

    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @BB753
    @Kylie

    She's totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!

    Replies: @Kylie

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Kylie

    "great for those men willing to TOFTT"

    Wrong way round. The guy who takes one for the team is the one she marries.


    What did the Colonel's Lady think ? Nobody never knew.
    Somebody asked the Sergeant's Wife,
    An' she told 'em true!
    When you get to a man in the case,
    They're like as a row of pins -
    For the Colonel's Lady an' Judy O'Grady
    Are sisters under their skins !
     
    I'm not sure there were so many Emma Forrests around when Kipling wrote that.
  129. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Kylie

    I see. I hadn't realised quite what a case she was, or her history of A-list men - no wonder the idea of sleeping with Mr 50-something Nice Guy made her cry.

    I'm sure some recently divorced Guardian readers (who haven't been out with Colin Farrell) will take her writing seriously and act on it.

    "Forrest wrote a memoir, Your Voice in My Head (2011), concerning the death of her psychiatrist and her subsequent break-up with her partner."

    Still, there are compensations...

    https://nypost.com/2018/08/14/men-have-better-sex-with-emotionally-unstable-women/

    Replies: @Rob McX

    Men have better sex with emotionally unstable women.

    As long as they give them false contact details and make sure they don’t follow them home.

    • Agree: Kylie
  130. @Kylie
    "...I hadn’t realised quite what a case she was..."

    Nor had I. Her sense of entitlement, irrationally and utter lack of decorum seem more like points on a continuum than discrete, diagnosable mental disorders.

    I'm sure the sex with her ilk is great for those men willing to TOFTT. But what about the rest of us? I had to go read some "Barrack Room Ballads" after reading her deluded blathering.

    Replies: @BB753, @YetAnotherAnon

    She’s totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @BB753

    " She’s totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!"

    I did and you're right. She was never more than just average.

    There's nothing wrong with being average. It's her insistence that despite all evidence to the contrary, she's more than that that's so weird. But plenty of women are similarly deluded. So she can count on a receptive female audience and dismiss any male critics as misogynists.

    Replies: @BB753

  131. @Farenheit
    I read a while back that one of the many drivers of income inequality was "assortive mating". (Think Bill Clinton and Obama)

    I always thought it would be humorous if a conservative type public speaker at a big ivy type graduation would bemoan income inequality, get the graduates, especially the girls, in a lather over this grave injustice, then drop the punchline that the most effective way to end this is for them to marry a "blue collar guy, especially if the blue collar guy is an immigrant, the more down trodden the better"

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    I’m surprised the authors didn’t use the term assortive mating, as it’s the first thing I thought of. For those who have never heard of the concept, it’s the modern phenomena where high-income people marry each other, such as a doctor marrying another doctor, rather than a doctor marrying a nurse and having her stay at home to raise the family. The benefits of women in the workplace are mitigated if women insist on marrying someone who earns more than they do.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  132. @Pixo
    @Almost Missouri

    The wiki article says Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.

    As to your question of how Africa can have big cities with very low labor productivity, my answer is that it is roughly self sufficient on food, and housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor. Beyond this explanation for food and housing, it has natural resource and speciality ag exports (chocolate, coffee, fresh produce to Saudi Arabia).

    This is also why I don’t think famine and disease will seriously dent African population growth. Most of black Africa is certainly very poor, but nowhere near starvation.

    Another way to look at it is that Niger isn’t in a major famine with per capita GDP of about $500. Far more populous Nigeria is at $2300, so even if it tripled in population without all the additional labor increasing GDP or subsistence agricultural production by even a penny, they still wouldn’t be starving.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.

    This is why I wrote the third paragraph in my previous comment. The national GDP is largely an artifact of elite looting and multinational transfer pricing. It is irrelevant to most Africans. Most SS Africans live on less than a dollar a day. Whatever financial games elites and foreigners are doing in coastal cities plays no role in their life.

    When you are a subsistence farmer, as almost half of Africans are, you can effectively live on zero dollars per day, because of the subsistence part of subsistence farming. But now SS Africa is half “urban”, i.e., mostly shantytowns ringing something like a city (“housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor”, as you put it). Those several hundred million people are not subsistence farmers. They produce no food, nor much else. They are dependent on getting food, whether from imports, from the vast outback of subsistence farmers, or from aid programs.

    Essentially, there is now a several hundred-million-strong reserve army of shantytown proletariat ringing major SS Africans cities. Per head, they are not very expensive to feed, but then that’s how they got to be so numerous in the first place. In r-selection, the mouths just keep increasing to the limit of available sustenance. In a subsistence agricultural environment, this is self-regulating, but since the age of international aid has dawned, the West has been carelessly increasing the sustenance, fostering a vast underclass of landless dependents, heedless that at some point a limit will reached.

    Several hundred million landless shantytown proletariat can be fed for several dozen billion dollars per year. By coincidence, that is about the size of Western aid to SS Africa.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Almost Missouri

    Not “carelessly “. Every African urban mouth being fed means not only more jobs for Western aid workers, but also more revenue for companies like Nestle and Heineken that sell cheap products to Africa, so these subsidies largely work their way back to the West. The massive damage this will eventually do to the West is a price the rest of us have to pay.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  133. @Zero Philosopher
    Steve Sailer:

    "On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids"

    I don't think so. because you are not taking into consideration something very important: the *interest* in having kids. Highly intelligent men are usually less interested in having kids. Many intellectuals and geniuses were childless. Isaac Newton comes to mind. And a highly intelligent man is far more likely to use birth control like condoms and to be aware of the severe social consequences of having kids, such as being forced to pay allimony if they get some chick knocked up.

    One of the interesting things is the relationship between fertility on the one hand, and intelligence and longevity on the other. There is a strong negative correlation between the two traits and fertility. Asa general rule, there is an inverse relation between age of puberty and reproduction and both intelligence and longevity.

    For instance, you might be surprised to know this, but children of older people, contrary to popular belief, tend to be remarkably healthier than children from young parents. People focus on the risks of older parenthood due to germline mutations, such as an increased tendency towards autism and Down's Syndrome.

    But many people are not aware that a lot of germline mutations that happens as people get older are designed not to handicap children, but to *increase* the long-term health and longevity of the children of older parents. Why? Because by breeding at an older age, you are signaling that environment is hard and that early reproduction is not possible, and that therefore more durable bodies with better repair capacities are needed since reproduction can only be achieved at an old age.

    If you read the works of Michael Rose, the *classic* way to prlong the lifespan of species is to only allow them to mate and breed after 90% of their lifespan is done. This process, repeated after many generation, more than doubles the average lifespan of flies and mice.

    For instance, one of the most important measures of lifespan and health, especially immune health, is leucocyte telomere length. Telomeres get shorter and shorter as you age, and when they reach an average length of around 4 kilobases, your cells achieve replicative senescence. This creates a state known as "crisis" which is characterized by chronic inflammation, apoptosis(cell death) and stem cell exhaustion. Death comes shortly after your cells have reached that critical threshold, which for Humans is around ages 70 to 90.

    Well, children from older fathers have *longer* telomeres than children from young fathers, and greater potential for longevity. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619950/
    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1202092109
    Why? Because the enzyme that elongates telomeres, telomerase, is active in spermatogonial sperm cells but not in somatic cells. So, as men get older, the telomeres of their sperm cells get longer instead of getting shorter, and the kids inherit the longer telomeres. The telomeres of sperm cells get longer as the men ages on purpose, since an older age of repdoduction requires a longer lifespan, so longer telomeres are needed on stem cells and immune cells to allow for the children of those men to reach an advanced age to reproduce. While it's true that negative germline mutations increase with age, several genetic adapations designed to prolong the lifespan of offspring also happens, and the children of older parents are actually remarkably healthy. Here is one of the oldest dads in Britain. His little son is not only remarkably healthy, but blood testing of the boy revealed unusually high levels of HDL-c, related to superior cardiovascular health and longevity, especially in males:https://youtu.be/nu_UquJUg8Y

    Another fact: they tested Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians in Hawaii. They found out that the most common genetic polymoprphism related to longevity is a single nucleotide polymprphism of a gene called FOXO3. This gene is related to antioxidant defenses, glucose metabolism, apoptosis of cancer cells and DNA damage response signaling. The longevity allele of this SNP replaces the typical adenine by a guanine. The SNP is rs2802292. The guanine increases the binding of the gene promoter to the target genes by over 4 X compared to the adenine. Here is where it gets really interesting: they found that the Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians that were homozygotes for the "G" allele of this gene had another thing in common besides being homozygotes for this allele: they were almost all the children of women that were at least 30 years of age and fathers that were at least 40 years of age when they were conceived. Conversely, the children of young parents under 25 were almost universally homozygotes for the "A" or typical allele, associated with a shorter lifespan. People that were heterozygotes for the SNP("GA") were the children of parents with variable ages, and had an intermediate lifespan.



    This goes back to Darwin's theory of Evolution, which states that the effort that the body will make in repairing itself depends on how essential the body is for reproduction. Having children at a younger age means that less genetic effort and resources are needed to be invested in maintaining the body, since it doesn't need to last for long for it to achieve the goal of reproduction, which is what bodies are desinge for in the first place. All long-lived species like bowhead whales, parrots and giant turtles have in common a low extrinsic mortality which allows for reproduction at older ages. Species that suffer heavy parasite infections or predation, like mice, are short lives and reach sexual maturity very fast.

    Another big mystery of Human evolution is the persistence of the APOE4 allele. The Apolipoprotein E &4 allele is the ancestral allele that Humans inherited from our ape-like ancestors. From the point of view of health and longevity, it is absolute catastrophe. You inherit one copy from mom and another from dad. If you have one copy of APOE4, you have 5 X the odds of Alzheimer's by age 65, and about 2 X the odds of cardiovascular disease. Conversely, if you inherit two copies, you have 5 X the oddss of cardiovascular disease and up to 30 X the chance of having Alzheimer's by age 65. In fact, being homozygote for APOE4 is almost guaranteed that you will be completely demented at 70. Here a woman explains the catastrophe when she found out that she is a homozygote for APOE4. Both her parents wrre completely demented in their sixties:
    https://youtu.be/bJTTNS3f_Gg

    so why does this disastrous gene allele persists in relatively high amount in modern Human populations? We have some clues based on the most common allele, APOE3. The APOE3 allele, which now predominates in all Human populations, is a recent evolutionary mutation of the past 200,000 years that seems to have evolved to increase lifespan, especially of the brain. This comes at the cost of a diminished resistence to parasitical infections and latter ages of puberty. The APOE3 replaces a cytosine for a thymine. This results in the arginine being replaced by a cysteine at the C-terminus of the gene. That has two major effects: first, it increases the shuffling of cholesterol into the brain. Secondly, it increases glucose transport through the brain-blood barrier, and third, it increases GATA expression and autophagy in the brain. The thing is extremely complex, but this subtle chnege in a single amino acid has extremely dramatic effects on the way that the protein functions. APOE4 brains have higher levels of inflammation and oxidative stress(free radicals), and accumulate "garbage" like amyloid plaques and neurofillament tangles. Basically, APOE4 brains are built for a "fast life strategy", while APOE3 evolved as Humasn left Africa and required longer lifespans to raise children when parental investment was more needed.

    So why does APOE4 persist if it so catastrophic for health, especially for brain health? Again, Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution doesn't care about health and longevity;i it cares about breeding. Health and longevity are tools to an end(reproduction), not the end itself. If you have a gene that makes you more fertile at 30 but makes you demented at 60, Evolution doesn't care. By age 60 or even age 40, your brain is no longer required for you to breed, so the gene that makes you more fertile but makes your brain rot will be selected for.

    It has now been proven that women that carry at least one APOE4 allele have higher levels of progesterone, which is one of the most important female sex hormones. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345437/ Not only that, they enter puberty at a younger age, and are more likely to have the "hourglass" figure. That makes them highly attractive to men, which is one of the ways that this bad allele persists. By being less effective at transporting fats and cholesterol into the brain, it makes fats and cholesterol more available to the body, resulting in higher levels of sex hormones and fertility, as well as more fats and cholesterol for the growing baby. Not only that, APOE4 increases the peripheral burtning of fat, which results in a greater resilience to ifections when you are young, at the cost of shorter durability of the immune system. That is, this horrific gene persists because it helps women make more babies, everything else be damned.

    If you look at the geographic distribution of APOE4, it persists most strongly in northern Europe and in central Africa. What does these two regions have in common? In a word? harshness. In central Africa, infections like Malaria are a real problem. In northern Europe, the scarcity of sunlight and food is also historically a problem. APOE4 increases levels of cholesterol which increases levels of vitamin D, E and K and makes women more likely to give birth in cold areas where sunlight and food is less abundant. About 23% of all notherrn europeans and their descendants have at least one copy of APOE4. Conversely, in southern Europe, where sunlight and food are more abundant while still having a relatively low parasite burden, APOE4 is much rarer at around 7%. In fact, in Sardinmia and the Basque country it is as low as 2%. If you are of northern European origin, like so many white Americans, there is roughly a 1 in 4 chance that you have at least 1 copy of APOE4. Having an Italian grandmother is the best news you could have for your cardiovascular and brain health since Italians are almost universally APOE3 or APOE2(a rare and even healthier version of the gene). But not every white American has an Italian or Spanish grandmother and thus most white Americans should check their APOE genotype. However, APOE determination, unlike checking your FOXO3 genotype for rs2802292, is extremely difficult and requires deep knowledge of genetics because it requires careful examination of multiple gene locuses. This is the kind of thing you want a professional geneticist to check. The classic method is to use rs429358. Having a "t" there means that you are APOE3, while having a "C" means you have APOE4. TT is APOE3/3, TC is APO3/4 and CC is APO4/4. But rs429358 is just an imperfect proxy, and many people that are C or even CC there are actually APOE3/3 homozygotes. This is why you should check with a professional geneticist. PhDs at other fields of biology like professors of molecular biology and medicine can also determine this for you easily. But don't ask your molecuolar biologist friend to check your genome for you because most would not want to risk giving you a heart attack by confirming that you truly have one or two arginines at the C-terminus of your Apolipoprotein E instead of one or two cysteines. Not everyone is cool with being the harbors of terrible news, especially to friends.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @BB753

    Thanks, man, now I know what I’ll be talking about on my next date.

    “So, babe, did you know older men’s telomeres are longer?”

    “Telo-what?”

    “Just prepare for pregnancy, I’ll explain later…”

    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @Bill P
    @Almost Missouri

    Just say "the lower the balls the longer the telomeres." I'm sure it will sell real well with the young ladies.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  134. @SFG
    @AnotherDad

    Thanks, man, quite flattering (though you really should find someone her age for your niece). It’s a particular combination of relatively weak game, relatively high income that may not persist over the next few decades (making an alimony settlement very dangerous), and a combo of personality traits that make a match difficult (women may be conservative or intellectual (not smart) but rarely both). Basically, there’s nobody who drives me nuts in a good way and the potential downside is huge, not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass. One master is enough, and in a few more years, I should be able to have none. I am not claiming it is ideal or a model for anyone.

    Replies: @anon, @YetAnotherAnon

    “not to mention the added stress of keeping a wife happy in addition to a boss…eh, I’ll pass”

    If you find a girl who likes children and you can earn enough to keep her at home looking after them, she’ll be pretty happy (and pretty tired). My wife took 10 years out of the workforce until our youngest was at high school.

    “the potential downside is huge”

    There are fewer than ever around, but find a girl whose parents are still married to each other.

  135. In other words, verboten scholar Edward Dutton, affiliated with a university in Poland because the West finds him too distasteful, is pretty much confirmed as correct.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @John Milton's Ghost

    I didn’t find the witch book all that convincing. His other stuff may be right.

  136. @Kylie
    "...I hadn’t realised quite what a case she was..."

    Nor had I. Her sense of entitlement, irrationally and utter lack of decorum seem more like points on a continuum than discrete, diagnosable mental disorders.

    I'm sure the sex with her ilk is great for those men willing to TOFTT. But what about the rest of us? I had to go read some "Barrack Room Ballads" after reading her deluded blathering.

    Replies: @BB753, @YetAnotherAnon

    “great for those men willing to TOFTT”

    Wrong way round. The guy who takes one for the team is the one she marries.

    What did the Colonel’s Lady think ? Nobody never knew.
    Somebody asked the Sergeant’s Wife,
    An’ she told ’em true!
    When you get to a man in the case,
    They’re like as a row of pins –
    For the Colonel’s Lady an’ Judy O’Grady
    Are sisters under their skins !

    I’m not sure there were so many Emma Forrests around when Kipling wrote that.

    • Thanks: Kylie
  137. @Achmed E. Newman

    A new study published today shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.
     
    It seems like much of this can be correlated to Welfare State Socialism, in which those who are the least responsible are supported by those who are the most responsible. Yeah, and this study was done in the UK too. Whaddy' know?

    I don't think the outcome will be inequality. The outcome will be an equally stupid and equally irresponsible population. One particular movie comes to mind.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Hypnotoad666, @interesting, @Joe862, @Ben tillman

    100% correct.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Ben tillman

    You meant to say 100% INcorrect. Same thing is happening in the USA, where welfare and socialism are a thing of the past.

  138. @Ben tillman
    @Achmed E. Newman

    100% correct.

    Replies: @Anon

    You meant to say 100% INcorrect. Same thing is happening in the USA, where welfare and socialism are a thing of the past.

  139. @BB753
    @Kylie

    She's totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!

    Replies: @Kylie

    ” She’s totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!”

    I did and you’re right. She was never more than just average.

    There’s nothing wrong with being average. It’s her insistence that despite all evidence to the contrary, she’s more than that that’s so weird. But plenty of women are similarly deluded. So she can count on a receptive female audience and dismiss any male critics as misogynists.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @Kylie

    She's average, well past her prime and bipolar. I'd say her market value is close to zero.

  140. @Almost Missouri
    @Zero Philosopher

    Thanks, man, now I know what I'll be talking about on my next date.

    "So, babe, did you know older men's telomeres are longer?"

    "Telo-what?"

    "Just prepare for pregnancy, I'll explain later..."

    Replies: @Bill P

    Just say “the lower the balls the longer the telomeres.” I’m sure it will sell real well with the young ladies.

    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Bill P

    Haha, okay man, don't let Telomere Envy get the better of you.

    Replies: @Bill P

  141. @John Milton's Ghost
    In other words, verboten scholar Edward Dutton, affiliated with a university in Poland because the West finds him too distasteful, is pretty much confirmed as correct.

    Replies: @SFG

    I didn’t find the witch book all that convincing. His other stuff may be right.

  142. @Zero Philosopher
    Steve Sailer:

    "On the other hand, more intelligent men tend to be able to afford more wives. I wouldn’t be surprised if guys who had a lot on the ball but didn’t have the patience to stick out college but then made a lot of money anyway tend to be the kind of guys who wind up paying alimony for a lot of wives and kids"

    I don't think so. because you are not taking into consideration something very important: the *interest* in having kids. Highly intelligent men are usually less interested in having kids. Many intellectuals and geniuses were childless. Isaac Newton comes to mind. And a highly intelligent man is far more likely to use birth control like condoms and to be aware of the severe social consequences of having kids, such as being forced to pay allimony if they get some chick knocked up.

    One of the interesting things is the relationship between fertility on the one hand, and intelligence and longevity on the other. There is a strong negative correlation between the two traits and fertility. Asa general rule, there is an inverse relation between age of puberty and reproduction and both intelligence and longevity.

    For instance, you might be surprised to know this, but children of older people, contrary to popular belief, tend to be remarkably healthier than children from young parents. People focus on the risks of older parenthood due to germline mutations, such as an increased tendency towards autism and Down's Syndrome.

    But many people are not aware that a lot of germline mutations that happens as people get older are designed not to handicap children, but to *increase* the long-term health and longevity of the children of older parents. Why? Because by breeding at an older age, you are signaling that environment is hard and that early reproduction is not possible, and that therefore more durable bodies with better repair capacities are needed since reproduction can only be achieved at an old age.

    If you read the works of Michael Rose, the *classic* way to prlong the lifespan of species is to only allow them to mate and breed after 90% of their lifespan is done. This process, repeated after many generation, more than doubles the average lifespan of flies and mice.

    For instance, one of the most important measures of lifespan and health, especially immune health, is leucocyte telomere length. Telomeres get shorter and shorter as you age, and when they reach an average length of around 4 kilobases, your cells achieve replicative senescence. This creates a state known as "crisis" which is characterized by chronic inflammation, apoptosis(cell death) and stem cell exhaustion. Death comes shortly after your cells have reached that critical threshold, which for Humans is around ages 70 to 90.

    Well, children from older fathers have *longer* telomeres than children from young fathers, and greater potential for longevity. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3619950/
    https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1202092109
    Why? Because the enzyme that elongates telomeres, telomerase, is active in spermatogonial sperm cells but not in somatic cells. So, as men get older, the telomeres of their sperm cells get longer instead of getting shorter, and the kids inherit the longer telomeres. The telomeres of sperm cells get longer as the men ages on purpose, since an older age of repdoduction requires a longer lifespan, so longer telomeres are needed on stem cells and immune cells to allow for the children of those men to reach an advanced age to reproduce. While it's true that negative germline mutations increase with age, several genetic adapations designed to prolong the lifespan of offspring also happens, and the children of older parents are actually remarkably healthy. Here is one of the oldest dads in Britain. His little son is not only remarkably healthy, but blood testing of the boy revealed unusually high levels of HDL-c, related to superior cardiovascular health and longevity, especially in males:https://youtu.be/nu_UquJUg8Y

    Another fact: they tested Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians in Hawaii. They found out that the most common genetic polymoprphism related to longevity is a single nucleotide polymprphism of a gene called FOXO3. This gene is related to antioxidant defenses, glucose metabolism, apoptosis of cancer cells and DNA damage response signaling. The longevity allele of this SNP replaces the typical adenine by a guanine. The SNP is rs2802292. The guanine increases the binding of the gene promoter to the target genes by over 4 X compared to the adenine. Here is where it gets really interesting: they found that the Japanese centenarians and supercentenarians that were homozygotes for the "G" allele of this gene had another thing in common besides being homozygotes for this allele: they were almost all the children of women that were at least 30 years of age and fathers that were at least 40 years of age when they were conceived. Conversely, the children of young parents under 25 were almost universally homozygotes for the "A" or typical allele, associated with a shorter lifespan. People that were heterozygotes for the SNP("GA") were the children of parents with variable ages, and had an intermediate lifespan.



    This goes back to Darwin's theory of Evolution, which states that the effort that the body will make in repairing itself depends on how essential the body is for reproduction. Having children at a younger age means that less genetic effort and resources are needed to be invested in maintaining the body, since it doesn't need to last for long for it to achieve the goal of reproduction, which is what bodies are desinge for in the first place. All long-lived species like bowhead whales, parrots and giant turtles have in common a low extrinsic mortality which allows for reproduction at older ages. Species that suffer heavy parasite infections or predation, like mice, are short lives and reach sexual maturity very fast.

    Another big mystery of Human evolution is the persistence of the APOE4 allele. The Apolipoprotein E &4 allele is the ancestral allele that Humans inherited from our ape-like ancestors. From the point of view of health and longevity, it is absolute catastrophe. You inherit one copy from mom and another from dad. If you have one copy of APOE4, you have 5 X the odds of Alzheimer's by age 65, and about 2 X the odds of cardiovascular disease. Conversely, if you inherit two copies, you have 5 X the oddss of cardiovascular disease and up to 30 X the chance of having Alzheimer's by age 65. In fact, being homozygote for APOE4 is almost guaranteed that you will be completely demented at 70. Here a woman explains the catastrophe when she found out that she is a homozygote for APOE4. Both her parents wrre completely demented in their sixties:
    https://youtu.be/bJTTNS3f_Gg

    so why does this disastrous gene allele persists in relatively high amount in modern Human populations? We have some clues based on the most common allele, APOE3. The APOE3 allele, which now predominates in all Human populations, is a recent evolutionary mutation of the past 200,000 years that seems to have evolved to increase lifespan, especially of the brain. This comes at the cost of a diminished resistence to parasitical infections and latter ages of puberty. The APOE3 replaces a cytosine for a thymine. This results in the arginine being replaced by a cysteine at the C-terminus of the gene. That has two major effects: first, it increases the shuffling of cholesterol into the brain. Secondly, it increases glucose transport through the brain-blood barrier, and third, it increases GATA expression and autophagy in the brain. The thing is extremely complex, but this subtle chnege in a single amino acid has extremely dramatic effects on the way that the protein functions. APOE4 brains have higher levels of inflammation and oxidative stress(free radicals), and accumulate "garbage" like amyloid plaques and neurofillament tangles. Basically, APOE4 brains are built for a "fast life strategy", while APOE3 evolved as Humasn left Africa and required longer lifespans to raise children when parental investment was more needed.

    So why does APOE4 persist if it so catastrophic for health, especially for brain health? Again, Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution doesn't care about health and longevity;i it cares about breeding. Health and longevity are tools to an end(reproduction), not the end itself. If you have a gene that makes you more fertile at 30 but makes you demented at 60, Evolution doesn't care. By age 60 or even age 40, your brain is no longer required for you to breed, so the gene that makes you more fertile but makes your brain rot will be selected for.

    It has now been proven that women that carry at least one APOE4 allele have higher levels of progesterone, which is one of the most important female sex hormones. See here:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345437/ Not only that, they enter puberty at a younger age, and are more likely to have the "hourglass" figure. That makes them highly attractive to men, which is one of the ways that this bad allele persists. By being less effective at transporting fats and cholesterol into the brain, it makes fats and cholesterol more available to the body, resulting in higher levels of sex hormones and fertility, as well as more fats and cholesterol for the growing baby. Not only that, APOE4 increases the peripheral burtning of fat, which results in a greater resilience to ifections when you are young, at the cost of shorter durability of the immune system. That is, this horrific gene persists because it helps women make more babies, everything else be damned.

    If you look at the geographic distribution of APOE4, it persists most strongly in northern Europe and in central Africa. What does these two regions have in common? In a word? harshness. In central Africa, infections like Malaria are a real problem. In northern Europe, the scarcity of sunlight and food is also historically a problem. APOE4 increases levels of cholesterol which increases levels of vitamin D, E and K and makes women more likely to give birth in cold areas where sunlight and food is less abundant. About 23% of all notherrn europeans and their descendants have at least one copy of APOE4. Conversely, in southern Europe, where sunlight and food are more abundant while still having a relatively low parasite burden, APOE4 is much rarer at around 7%. In fact, in Sardinmia and the Basque country it is as low as 2%. If you are of northern European origin, like so many white Americans, there is roughly a 1 in 4 chance that you have at least 1 copy of APOE4. Having an Italian grandmother is the best news you could have for your cardiovascular and brain health since Italians are almost universally APOE3 or APOE2(a rare and even healthier version of the gene). But not every white American has an Italian or Spanish grandmother and thus most white Americans should check their APOE genotype. However, APOE determination, unlike checking your FOXO3 genotype for rs2802292, is extremely difficult and requires deep knowledge of genetics because it requires careful examination of multiple gene locuses. This is the kind of thing you want a professional geneticist to check. The classic method is to use rs429358. Having a "t" there means that you are APOE3, while having a "C" means you have APOE4. TT is APOE3/3, TC is APO3/4 and CC is APO4/4. But rs429358 is just an imperfect proxy, and many people that are C or even CC there are actually APOE3/3 homozygotes. This is why you should check with a professional geneticist. PhDs at other fields of biology like professors of molecular biology and medicine can also determine this for you easily. But don't ask your molecuolar biologist friend to check your genome for you because most would not want to risk giving you a heart attack by confirming that you truly have one or two arginines at the C-terminus of your Apolipoprotein E instead of one or two cysteines. Not everyone is cool with being the harbors of terrible news, especially to friends.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @BB753

    BTW, is it likely that actor Bruce Willis is a homozygote for APOE4, thus explaining his “aphasia”, i.e. Alzheimer’s?

  143. @Kylie
    @BB753

    " She’s totally deluded about her worth in the dating market. Emma Forrest was only average at best in her twenties. Google her up!"

    I did and you're right. She was never more than just average.

    There's nothing wrong with being average. It's her insistence that despite all evidence to the contrary, she's more than that that's so weird. But plenty of women are similarly deluded. So she can count on a receptive female audience and dismiss any male critics as misogynists.

    Replies: @BB753

    She’s average, well past her prime and bipolar. I’d say her market value is close to zero.

  144. @Almost Missouri
    @Pixo


    Tanzania is a top 10 aid recipient and got about 1.5b a year. Its nominal GDP is 77 billion.

    To take the biggest nation, Nigeria got 3.5b in 2019 and its GDP is about 498b.
     
    This is why I wrote the third paragraph in my previous comment. The national GDP is largely an artifact of elite looting and multinational transfer pricing. It is irrelevant to most Africans. Most SS Africans live on less than a dollar a day. Whatever financial games elites and foreigners are doing in coastal cities plays no role in their life.

    When you are a subsistence farmer, as almost half of Africans are, you can effectively live on zero dollars per day, because of the subsistence part of subsistence farming. But now SS Africa is half "urban", i.e., mostly shantytowns ringing something like a city ("housing costs are very low due to low effective taxes, low land value, and very cheap construction labor", as you put it). Those several hundred million people are not subsistence farmers. They produce no food, nor much else. They are dependent on getting food, whether from imports, from the vast outback of subsistence farmers, or from aid programs.

    Essentially, there is now a several hundred-million-strong reserve army of shantytown proletariat ringing major SS Africans cities. Per head, they are not very expensive to feed, but then that's how they got to be so numerous in the first place. In r-selection, the mouths just keep increasing to the limit of available sustenance. In a subsistence agricultural environment, this is self-regulating, but since the age of international aid has dawned, the West has been carelessly increasing the sustenance, fostering a vast underclass of landless dependents, heedless that at some point a limit will reached.

    Several hundred million landless shantytown proletariat can be fed for several dozen billion dollars per year. By coincidence, that is about the size of Western aid to SS Africa.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev

    Not “carelessly “. Every African urban mouth being fed means not only more jobs for Western aid workers, but also more revenue for companies like Nestle and Heineken that sell cheap products to Africa, so these subsidies largely work their way back to the West. The massive damage this will eventually do to the West is a price the rest of us have to pay.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Peter Akuleyev


    The massive damage this will eventually do to the West is a price the rest of us have to pay.
     
    Agreed. Several hundred million shantytown African proles with few prospects and less attachment to their homeland, all awaiting the opportunity to embark to a richer shore. They are enough to submerge the population of Europe, or North America, or both simultaneously.

    The invasion army is made and motivated, it awaits only the opportunity to depart...
  145. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Almost Missouri

    Not “carelessly “. Every African urban mouth being fed means not only more jobs for Western aid workers, but also more revenue for companies like Nestle and Heineken that sell cheap products to Africa, so these subsidies largely work their way back to the West. The massive damage this will eventually do to the West is a price the rest of us have to pay.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The massive damage this will eventually do to the West is a price the rest of us have to pay.

    Agreed. Several hundred million shantytown African proles with few prospects and less attachment to their homeland, all awaiting the opportunity to embark to a richer shore. They are enough to submerge the population of Europe, or North America, or both simultaneously.

    The invasion army is made and motivated, it awaits only the opportunity to depart…

  146. @Bill P
    @Almost Missouri

    Just say "the lower the balls the longer the telomeres." I'm sure it will sell real well with the young ladies.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Haha, okay man, don’t let Telomere Envy get the better of you.

    • Replies: @Bill P
    @Almost Missouri

    Hey I'm having a laugh at my own expense here. I'm no fresh sprout. Not old yet but it's on the horizon.

  147. @Almost Missouri
    @Bill P

    Haha, okay man, don't let Telomere Envy get the better of you.

    Replies: @Bill P

    Hey I’m having a laugh at my own expense here. I’m no fresh sprout. Not old yet but it’s on the horizon.

  148. It’s cool, man.

    Just remember the New Breeder’s Equation:

    more sack = more telomere

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement