November 26, 2007

My new VDARE.com column on immigration and fertility

My new VDARE.com column appears in two sections today. Start reading here.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

By Steve Sailer on 11/26/2007 Labels:

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Eugenic if you want to -- we're happy to see the least productive group grow fastest.

The highest birthrate in the UK is among Pakistani-born women, who have an average of 4.7 children each. Last year, 22 per cent of births in the UK were to foreign-born women.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/npop125.xml

11/26/07, 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...

The baby boom info is interesting, and makes sense. Illegal immigrants have resource insecurity which makes them reluctant to have children. Remove the insecurity through amnest, and childbirths increase.

It's already impossible to prevent whites from becoming a minority. Less than 55% of 0-2 year olds are non-Hispanic white. Even with zero immigration (which won't happen), the differential fertility rates alone will lower that below 50% in a few years.

11/26/07, 9:20 AM
Anonymous said...

My guess is that in 15 years more than half of the baby boomers will be dead. That´s a large chunk of the white population dead or senile.

With inmigrants reproducing at the present rate and an upcoming amnesty increasing the numbers of aliens (relatives of the newly legalized and yet more illegals), by then the USA will be certainly less than 40 % White.
In short: America, in 2022, will be more or less 35 % white and decreasing.
Wanna bet?

11/26/07, 12:28 PM
Anonymous said...

@Half Sigma

The only “resource insecurity” an illegal alien couple has is solved by the birth of their first child. This freshly minted citizen is the key to staying in the US obtaining any social services denied (are there any in practice?) to non-citizens and eventual citizenship. Read the post, it is the family re-unification aspect of an amnesty that fires up the baby boom.

11/26/07, 1:07 PM
Anonymous said...

But let me make another point about your 2 neighbors chatting about grandchildren. We should take one other 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 even younger) 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, we can quickly see some striking 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 really 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. 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 very quickly.

D Flinchum

11/26/07, 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Great article Steve!

A couple of political points. Affirmative Action and the non-existence of White Identity groups has been predicated on particularly White Males (and females) not being threatened. As whites become a minority of the population they will start to demand identity politics and set-asides. A certain percentage of jobs/etc. set aside as "White Only."

And if they don't -- riots etc. followed by lawsuits. Since that obviously works.

The Democratic political coalition of Upper Class White Yuppies from the Boomer generation, angry man-hating feminists, Black Power radicals, and various ethnic identity groups had a free ride only so far as the "cost" to whites was relatively isolated. The antagonistic groups were small, and whites could move away. What happens when that ceases to be? When Whites are defacto excluded by nepotistic kin networks, i.e. Mexican/Black only groups as already exist in some unions?

My one criticism of the fertility gap is the condition of women. Women in non-Western, Islamic nations like Algeria, Tunisia, and Iran have below replacement fertility levels, around 1.7 or so. Yet wealthy and "modern" nations like say, Malaysia which are also Islamic have far higher fertility rates (around 4 IIRC). What gives? I don't see any hard numbers to point me to this solution, and land/income would seem to be roughly equal if not better among the low-fertility nations as opposed to the high-one such as Malaysia.

Could it be that women are simply delaying fertility as they become better educated and independent, in the hopes of having a kid with an Alpha male. The NYT article on IVF among older women who relentlessly sought a yuppie designer Eugenic baby (even among those with live-in-boyfriends) from a list of "Alpha" type bodybuilder males was to me, telling.

That would certainly explain the difference in fertility rates tracking income levels, and predict future fertility levels -- i.e. if most Mexican ancestry women fail to achieve high levels of independence and education their fertility rate will not decline; the rate will decline if they do achieve high levels of independence and education.

11/26/07, 3:08 PM
Anonymous said...

"Even with zero immigration (which won't happen), the differential fertility rates alone will lower that below 50% in a few years."

At least in my part of the state where I live there is a baby boom among middle class whites of all ages but that's due to an electrical outage of several days last winter. I don't recommend this method to encourage procreation as it is very unfair to single people and the elderly.

I know it's important to observe population trends but I can't help thinking that the upcoming generation of whites might be more likely to start families in their 20s and early 30s. Enlistment in the military seems to encourage people to settle down earlier and this example might end up influencing non-military types as well.

Also, we aren't on automatic pilot culturally or demographically. High school and college students are keen observers of the group that enters adulthood/the workforce in the few years prior to their own graduation dates and adjust their behavior accordingly. Classmates not getting hired b/c high tech jobs are being outsourced, avoid graduating with a major in this field. Notice older sisters waiting too late to have children, start families earlier. So demographics can change rapidly as young adults respond to circumstances.

11/26/07, 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...

What are the incentives for having more children that whites would respond to more than NAMs?

Child tax deductions-Whites pay higher tax rates, so deductions reduce tax burdens more.

Deductions or credits for private schooling or home schooling- A higher percent of white children are outside public education(I think) If they could keep more of their money, it would marginally encourage people to leave the public schools, and benefit whites. The justifcation could be that they reduce strain on public education.

Reduce the birthrate of the felon class- Disproportionately NAM, and prison is a horrible place to raise babies. It also seems much more ethical to stop wifebeaters and rapists from having children than it is to reduce people's child production just because they are dumb.

Schools-let bright girls graduate faster. The sooner smart girls get out, the more kids they could have. Conversely, keep NAM and dimmer girls in school as long as possible.

11/26/07, 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...

Oh yeah,

Keep the estate and inheritance taxes down. Whites tend to have more assets, and the windfalls from dying boomers will allow them more wealth, which can be turned into brighter babies.

11/26/07, 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...

I think what most people are ignoring here are the differences in lifetimes of the progeny of the illegal immigrants we are discussing.

In addition, these immigrants and their progeny have not shown a great inclination to vote, so perhaps people are running scared for little reason (except the waste of resources).

11/26/07, 4:04 PM
Anonymous said...

"Schools-let bright girls graduate faster. The sooner smart girls get out, the more kids they could have."

No, the sooner they go on to get graduate degrees and have 1.4 kids. You won't see smart girls returning to having big families and taking care of them again until you make (white urban) society rediscover its respect for motherhood, and make families willing to sacrifice their quality of life slightly in order to have one or two more kids.

11/26/07, 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...

Are there any studies between countries showing a correlation between IQ and fertility rate? I'm sure there would be a good fit (the higher fertility rate, the lower the iq, and viceversa). Of course, that's the whole premise of a movie like Idiocracy.

11/26/07, 5:28 PM
Anonymous said...

2nd anon,

The sooner they have 1.4 kids, the shorter the generation time. See first anon.

Last anon,

gnxp has it somewhere. But I'm tired.

11/26/07, 6:26 PM
Anonymous said...

When wondering about fertility trends and who gives birth, etc., we should introduce trends across time. Unfortunately, most of what I've seen goes back only to the early 20th century. And especially after reading, "Human Accomplishment", I strongly believe this doesn't come close to being adequate.

Interesting comments about girls' education by the way, especially since it's not just theory for my family. My daughters are homeschooled partly in the hope that they will graduate very early, get a college education early as well, and be able to settle down in their prime. I left college at 20 to get married and I hated that I didn't finish my degree, but my values were such that finishing just wasn't possible. I don't want my daughters to experience that conflict between their religious, family values and being educated.

11/26/07, 7:26 PM
Anonymous said...

Women in Malaysia have less access to birth control and abortion. It's really, really simple: access to birth control and abortion=less childbearing. It should be really really obvious why as a group, the people who risk gaining 50 lbs and having to shit a watermelon as a result of sex will act to reduce that risk.

11/26/07, 8:51 PM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... Why are you so upset over the fact the fertility level of American-born Asian women is 1.4. I don't get it. All of these American -born Asian women are the daughters of Asian legal immigrants who stole jobs from White American Men in the engineering profession during the 1970's.
Hmmm, oh Anonymous? I do not think this site means what you think it means. Anonymous appears to have stumbled here believing some of Steve's more deluded detractors. BTW, I am one of those astute Silicon Valley white engineering types who happily married a pretty Asian gal and is raising a family. Interesting fact: 130 years ago over 300 Chinese laborers graded the trail from Los Gatos to Santa Cruz for the South Pacific Coast Railroad.

11/26/07, 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...

Are there any studies between countries showing a correlation between IQ and fertility rate? I'm sure there would be a good fit (the higher fertility rate, the lower the iq, and viceversa). Of course, that's the whole premise of a movie like Idiocracy.

I think I've found scientific proof of the idiocracy. I compared fertility rates and mean IQ of 81 countries, using Spearman's rank correlation. The result was -0.821. Yikes.

Not surprisingly, a t-test reveals that the difference in fertility rates between the 10 dumbest countries and the 10 smartest countries is statistically significant (T-Value = 11.67 P-Value = 0.000).

The ten lowest IQ countries on the planet (guess which continent they're all on) have a mean fertility rate of 4.921.

The ten highest IQ countries on the planet (4 East Asian followed by 6 western European) have a mean fertility rate of 1.343.

If demographics is destiny, we are truly screwed....

11/26/07, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...

Good points of fertility drops over time. One thing that always stood out in looking at 19th-early 20th Century France's demographic growth (almost entirely flat) and Germany's (rising dramatically) was ... well WHY?

Why did 19th and early 20th Century Frenchwomen have few kids and their German counterparts have comparatively more? Why then did German fertility essentially fall off the cliff after 1945?

My guess is high casualties among young men during Napoleon's adventures tipped the balance toward a more female-oriented society, with delayed marriage-childbirth (fewer desirable men I guess) and the same thing happened in Germany after WWII. After all, the Wirtschaftwunder should have provided a demographic jump-start with good times rolling, yet West Germany was in stead demographic decline.

That would also explain Iran and possibly Algeria, but not Tunisia.

11/26/07, 10:54 PM
Anonymous said...

I'm told that in northern Sweden they turn off the lights for about one day each winter to encourage procreation. I didnt say it out loud, but my reaction was "What?! What if you dont want to have sex? Or cant?"

11/26/07, 11:12 PM
Anonymous said...

Iran's fertility is entirely the result of its authoritative government. When the Shah was first deposed, the government instituted a program to encourage women to breed soldiers for Islam, and Iran's birth rate surged. Later, the government realized it might have trouble providing for an exploding population, and told the same mullahs that had been exhorting their followers to breed litters to have one or two kids instead. Free sterilization for married men who already had one child was offered. The fertility rate crashed.

If Iran wants to boost its birth rate again, it should have relatively little problem doing so assuming the current power structure is in place. But as is, their population is forecast to peak at around 80 million due to demographic momentum, so I don't think it's a worry for them at this point.

11/27/07, 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... Women in Malaysia have less access to birth control and abortion.

Why do women in Malaysia have less access to birth control and abortion then Iran, Algeria and Tunisia?

Evil Neocon said... ...the non-existence of White Identity groups...

Do you not consider Jewish American, Armenian American, etc, as white Identity groups?

11/27/07, 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...

Why Malaysia enforces its restrictive abortion laws is a complicated question that can be endlessly discussed, but the question was why Malaysia has higher fertility than other Islamic countries and that's really easy.

Another really easy question to answer is why France's population remained almost flat in the late 18th and 19th centuries - absence of primogeniture in the inheritance laws, duh. Small families were the only way to keep from dividing the property into useless bits.

11/27/07, 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...

"Another really easy question to answer is why France's population remained almost flat in the late 18th and 19th centuries - absence of primogeniture in the inheritance laws, duh. "

Wasn't there a famine around this time that caused people to delay marriage and therefore childbirth until their late 20s simply for the sake of survival?

11/27/07, 4:06 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)