When a nation’s population grows, it’s easier for that nation to experience economic growth. This is the conventional economic wisdom that has been unchallenged for centuries. And there was little reason to challenge this axiom, because throughout human history, the global population trend has been one of perpetual increase. But as birthrates are crashing in wealthier nations, without exception, it may be time to reexamine what constitutes healthy economic growth and how it may be achieved without increasing population.
The way Western nations have chosen to respond to crashing birthrates is to rely on mass immigration. Tens of millions of people are being encouraged to migrate from poor nations where fertility remains high into rich nations with low fertility. This gives rise to challenges that remain unresolved and indeed may worsen as people arrive by the millions from cultures with dramatically different values and beliefs than the host culture.
Let’s assume for a moment that these cultural clashes can be resolved. That’s making a huge leap of faith, but let’s envision a world where, as the developed nations saw their indigenous population diminish, they were steadily replaced by immigrants from high-fertility nations. This is not mere speculation. Based on current trends, within a generation, indigenous populations in developed nations will become minorities, outnumbered by immigrants.
So notwithstanding how these nations would maintain social stability in the face of replacement levels of immigration, and notwithstanding how the indigenous cultures would merge with the immigrant cultures into something unrecognizable by any historical comparisons, what else can we surmise might characterize these new and blended populations?
One of the most salient determinants of individual success is an individual’s general intelligence, and what’s true for individuals is also true for nations. The data on average IQ by nation is available online, and when checking multiple sources here, here, and here, the overall figures were remarkably consistent. What is also true, although the scatter plot does reveal some outliers, is that in the world today, the higher the national average IQ, the lower the fertility. The converse is also true.
Discussing average intellect by groups, certainly including nations, is somewhat of a forbidden topic. For example, Wikipedia, a reliably politically correct resource, does not even offer the data but does feature a lengthy discussion of why the data is controversial and potentially misleading. Anyone truly interested in learning more about IQ and nations is encouraged to read Wikipedia’s take on the subject, but the implications of a blended national population becoming significantly less intelligent are too profound to leave it at that.
What if IQ is predominantly heritable? What if the much-vaunted “Flynn Effect,” which claims human IQ has been increasing steadily over time, only goes so far? Will the Flynn Effect raise the collective IQ of a population from 80 to 100, or from 60 to 80? And what are the consequences if the Flynn Effect doesn’t deliver the results we’re hoping for?
Data on IQ for various occupations indicates that civil and mechanical engineers, the people who keep civilization running, on average have an IQ of 130. In America, where the average IQ is 100, only 2 percent of the population has an IQ that high. But since the Bell Curve of intelligence has a consistent, symmetrical shape even if the peak—representing the average—is in a different place, if a nation’s average IQ is 80, then only 2 percent of that population have an IQ of 110, and almost nobody would have an IQ above 130.
Whenever writing about IQ, we have to be careful not to offend anyone. But imagine a nation where the IQ has dropped by 10 points because the composition of its population has been significantly altered. Generally speaking, higher intelligence enables an individual to process unfamiliar information and problem solve faster and more accurately. Do we want to significantly degrade our collective ability to manage our infrastructure, from air traffic to pipelines and power plants?
The promise of artificial intelligence and neurolinks may be problematic. I’m reminded of a scene in the 1973 movie Paper Chase, where a law professor confronts a student who gave a nonsensical answer to a question he’d asked. The student protested, saying he had a photographic memory. The professor’s reply was instructive. He said a photographic memory is of almost no use unless you have the brainpower to process all that information you’re memorizing so effectively.
This anecdote underscores the fallacy of mechanical augmentation of intellect. The reality of AI and neurolinks may be completely the opposite of what they promise. That is, we may need to be more intelligent and better educated if we are to avoid being steered in whatever direction our embedded programs decide to take us.
Gene editing for intelligence is another pathway towards higher average cognition. It’s a little early to know how that’s going to work, apart from the fact that we can count on every aspect of genetic enhancement to be maximized by nations that lack the scruples to proceed with caution.
Who knows, maybe the Flynn Effect will bail us out. But one thing is certain: the human population is rapidly declining in every developed nation on earth. How we adapt to that, and who we invite into our nations, should involve a discussion that includes all variables.
I speak with Zoomers all the time and specifically women. Many want neither marriage or children. And why would they when their id and egos are concerned about corporate jobs, productivity and raises that buys the American Dream that appears limitless? Gestation gets in the way, child birth gets in the way and child rearing consumes a vast amount of effort and time and the latter is never recoverable.
I often stress that they can’t have it all unless it is provided by AI. That time will arrive.
Since the late nineteen eighties the WSJ has stressed open borders and abortion. So do colleges, universities and most of the media. It’s all about the stock market, stock portfolios and the success of corporations once dominated by men. It now includes a labor force of high IQ productive women. Obviously many other women, independent of IQ, not so well educated, are still part of the labor pool which takes them out of their rolls in historically traditional families designed for one thing – reproduction and the continuation of traditions (culture) and language.
Yesterday I spent a good deal of time with a 3 year old who had the inquisitiveness of a DOGE hacker that kept me busier answering her questions than an IRS auditor. Today, I sympathize with her parents because they have to pick up where I left off. For this child I doubt there is any substitute for her parents, uncles and aunts and the rest of her concerned family members, that the corporate world could come up with.
It’s either about corporations or children and the families needed to socialize them. I look to biology, genetics and culture for purpose and answers. The corporate world has a different viewpoint.
Although an interesting read, it’s a bit incomplete, though the author can be forgiven for tiptoeing around what is arguably the taboo or all politically-incorrect taboos—ethnic and national IQs.
And though Mr. Ring does not quite complete his thoughts, the point is still made: how to arrest or even reverse lowering national birth rates without importing millions of low IQ immigrants. And if allowing mass immigration from nations with historically lower IQs is the only way to stop declining national replacement rates, what effect does this have on indigenous IQ averages?
This conundrum is aggravated by the tendency of many immigrant groups to resist assimilation and instead isolate into homogeneous communities. These communities then reinforce the same practices and customs (i.e. intermarriage) that perpetuates high fertility and low IQs.
This doom loop of isolation and assimilation resistance will certainly be impervious to any “Flynn effect” noted by the author.
Thus, we become a nation of the Eloi and the Morlochs.
It all comes back to making our immigration policy centered on what’s good for this country, or we will end up like Europe. That continent made a collective horrendous choice decades ago to allow in people who hate the native population and want to supplant it while relying on it to support them until they breed in numbers enough to do it. As we saw in the recent war in the ME, and even in the campus protests, these people are nihilists and chauvinists of the first order. They will never give up on the dream because it’s part of their religion. Although many factors make it harder for them to achieve the same goal here as they seek in Europe, we will eventually end up in the same place if we don’t pursue strict America-First policies to counter it.
I read the article and the comments with interest. Not really addressed was the question of exactly which parts of the native population is reproducing----and here is good news. Conservatives are having babies at a much higher rate than liberals.
We also know that conservative women are happier than liberal women. Who wants to mate with an angry woman?
Democrat states have higher divorce rates than Republican states. What man would want his children raised by an angry woman? Evidently few men in Blue states do.
At some time we will have a bi-furcated population of elderly women-----angry liberal women with lots of cats, and happy conservative grandmas with lots of grandchildren.
That sounds just.