DYSGENICS AND LOW CREATIVITY – WHY CHINA ISN’T THE FUTURE
It’s possible to derive some comfort from contemplating the Chinese. Sure, unless something radical is done, Western civilization is going to collapse due to the most intelligent women having the fewest children, combined with massive low IQ (and highly fertile) immigration from the Third World.
So argues Edward Dutton in his forthcoming At Our Wits’ End. Some will then argue that surely civilization will be preserved by the Chinese. Unfortunately, research is showing that this is just wishful thinking.
Such as leading IQ researcher Professor Richard Lynn actually proclaiming in his book Dysgenics that China’s one child policy—introduced in 1979 and abolished in 2015—was the savior of civilization. His reasoning?
The strongly cultural desire in China for a boy and the abortion of female fetuses, meant that by the late-1990s, young males massively out-numbered females in China, showed Lynn.
The females would naturally be attracted to the wealthiest and most educated males, as these males would be able to provide the optimum lifestyle for them and, anyway, females tend to sexually select for status because doing so, under evolutionary conditions, ensured the survival of their offspring [Women Marry Up, by Edward Dutton, in Encyclopaedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, Springer, 2018].
The inevitable result, argued Lynn: less intelligent Chinese men would fail to breed, as intelligence robustly predicts wealth and status and is about 80% genetic.
In addition, the ability to pay the fines for breaking the One-Child law would allow the wealthy, and thus more intelligent, to have more than one child. As such, concluded Lynn China must have “eugenic fertility” and it is to China that the “torch of civilization” will pass.
Unfortunately for China, this is not what research by a young Chinese psychologist has found.
In a study published in 2016 in the leading journal Intelligence, Mingrui Wang presented some shocking—and counter-intuitive—findings. Even despite the one child policy, there is “Evidence of Dysgenic Fertility in China.”
The Chinese researcher and his team explored the relationship between intelligence, education-level and fertility, using a large sample from the China Family Panel dataset, which is highly representative of the Chinese population. They found that among the cohort born between 1951 and 1970, the correlation between general intelligence and fertility was -0.1, very similar to that found in Western countries.
Between 1986 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.31 IQ points per decade and between 1971 and the year 2000, the Chinese lost 0.75 IQ points.
The researchers also discovered that education level is negatively associated with fertility in China. And the negative correlation between fertility and both IQ and education level is stronger among females than males.
In other words, though the Chinese have an average IQ of 105 according to Richard Lynn, and despite their introduction of the One-Child policy, they are suffering precisely the same process as the West.
The most intelligent females are not selecting for the most intelligent Chinese males or, indeed, any males. As in the West, they are dedicating themselves to their education and then their careers, meaning they are simply failing to pass on their genes at all.
In addition, the strong cultural tradition in China—especially in the low IQ countryside – of desiring sons rather than daughters, leading to selective abortion, is dual-edged.
The more intelligent Chinese, living in the cities, are more likely to content themselves with having a daughter. And the more intelligent she is, the more likely she is to have no children, leading to the elimination of her (intelligent) parents’ genes. It is possible that this phenomenon could even be sufficiently strong to undermine any indirect benefits to IQ which may have been wrought by the one child policy.
Slightly less intelligent women are spending all of their twenties dedicated to their careers, only have children in their thirties and not having very many. The least intelligent Chinese women—too low in IQ and impulsive to use contraception—are having excess children even despite the fines and the risk of heavy-handed Communist Party officials trying to compel them to have abortions.
Perhaps their husbands see the fines as a price worth paying if it ensures that they get a son.
In addition, the one child policy never even applied to China’s non-Han ethnic minorities.
These groups are overwhelmingly rural-dwelling and they have lower IQ than the Han. The more Han a Chinese region is then the smarter it is [Differences in intelligence across the 31 regions of China and their economic and demographic correlates].
For example, the average IQ of Tibetans is 92 meaning their IQ is almost 15 points lower than that of the Han, similar to that of Greece or Romania.
This decline is made all the more perilous due to research, led by Japanese psychologist Kenya Kura, which has shown that Northeast Asians are genetically less intellectually creative than Europeans. Kura asks: Why Do Northeast Asians Win So Few Nobel Prizes?
Northeast Asians, compared to Europeans, have higher gene frequencies of polymorphisms which make people collectivist, socially anxious, and fearful of anything novel. Kura and his team argue that this is adaptation to a particular ecology, where it is vital to stay in a tightly-bonded group.
However, they note that scientific innovators tend to combine very high IQ with an optimally low level of collectivism, low social anxiety and low fearfulness of the new. In other words, they have high “Openness-Intellect”, as psychologists term this trait.
This psychological profile means that they can think outside the box and don’t care about the offence to vested interests which their new idea will almost certainly result in.
This is why, maintains Kura, it is the West that generated the Industrial Revolution, rather than more intelligent Northeast Asians. The West is indeed the Goldilocks Zone for genius.
“The torch of civilization” may well pass to China, but it will continue to get dimmer and dimmer and very little new fuel will be added to it. The torch’s bearer will slide into an increasingly authoritarian dictatorship—as happens to relatively low IQ societies—and the light of civilization will go out, unless it can somehow be passed to a society that is still under eugenic fertility.
Andrew Cuomo, Governor of my home state of New York, was speaking in Manhattan on Wednesday, signing a bill to make sex trafficking a felony in the state. He made a now-famous gaffe, which says a great deal about the state of the modern Democrat Party
But first, just a word about sex trafficking.
Kidnapping vulnerable young girls and renting them out for sex is a flourishing business down among the urban underclass. The Pakistani pimps of Rotherham and other English cities are the best-known cases, but plenty of it goes on here in the U.S.A., too. As in England, it’s very much an ethnic affair here, although news reports tie themselves in pretzels trying to obscure the fact. [Inside New York’s silent sex trafficking epidemic, NYPost, April 17, 2018]There’s an immigration angle, too; a lot of the women being trafficked here are illegal aliens from Mexico, Central America, and Asia.
It’s a problem in New York, and our legislators figured we need a new law to deal with it. I find it hard to believe that the laws we already have on kidnapping, prostitution, and abuse of minors are not adequate to deal with the issue; but hey, it’s an election year, Cuomo’s up for re-election as governor, and signing a new law is good show business.
But I should say that the phrase “Democrat Party” in my last sentence refers to the oldDemocrat Party, the party of FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton and John Kerry. Andrew Cuomo, like those other names, is a white guy of European ancestry. Like other white guys in his party, Cuomo has the uncomfortable feeling that the ground is moving under his feet—that the Democrat Party is turning into something different from what it has been though his, and my, lifetime.
As a result, the Governor is nursing some serious political insecurities. Is the Democrat Party still a party for him, for white guys? Or is it on its way to being a party for women, blacks, mestizos, and sexual eccentrics?
Naturally the guy is nervous. He is, as I said, up for re-election in the fall; and before that, next month, he faces off in a Democrat primary against TV actress Cynthia Nixon.
Nobody thinks Ms. Nixon has much of a chance of becoming the Democrat nominee for Governor in the fall, but that’s not really the point. The point is that in Andrew Cuomo’s eyes, and the eyes of old white male heterosexual Democrats like him, Cynthia Nixon looks like the future while he looks like the past. Ms. Nixon is female, homosexual, and wa-a-a-ay out on the political Left. She makes our poor governor feel like a relic.
Don’t place any bets against Cuomo. He’s a skillful politician with the state party in his pocket. He’ll get the nomination, then he’ll win re-election in November. Our state is mostly Republican; but the wee bit that isn’t includes New York City, which has close to half the state’s population … enough said.
Still the guy’s nervous. He was also a little rattled, earlier this week—before the Wednesday bill-signing event—he was a little rattled by President Trump having been in the state on Monday, at a fundraiser for the state Republican Party. At that event our President speculated that maybe Cuomo wants to run for President in 2020. “Please do it, please,” said the President mockingly. [Trump dares NY Gov. Cuomo to run against him in 2020, says ‘anybody that runs against Trump suffers’, By Alex Pappas, Fox News, August 13, 2018] The Governor doesn’t like to be mocked, any more than you or I do.
So when Cuomo stepped up on Wednesday to sign this bill against sex trafficking, he was both suffering from chronic existential anxiety about the direction of his party and rattled by Trump’s Monday remark. Under those stresses, his self-control slipped, and he spoke unwisely.
What he actually said was:
We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness, we will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged, we will reach greatness when discrimination and stereotyping against women, 51 percent of our population, is gone and every woman’s full potential is realized and unleashed and every woman is making her full contribution.
[Andrew Cuomo shocks crowd, says America ‘was never that great’, by Adam Shaw, August 1, 2018]
Now, taken on face value, that’s gibberish. Men and women are biologically different; they are never going to exhibit identical profiles on every kind of behavior, achievement, or social outcome. As for “discrimination”: Well, someone should ask the governor why, if women are “51 percent of our population,” they are 56 percent of college students but less than seven percent of federal prison inmates.
But that’s giving the Governor’s words more respect than they deserve. He’s not making observations about real things in the real world; he’s a politician sending out signals to likely voters. The signal there was: “I’m not a part of that rotten old patriarchy trying to keep women down. I am cool and up-to-date with the new Democrat Party, which is absolutely not a party of straight old white guys.”
But Cuomo just went a bit too far, saying that America “was never that great.” It’s a logical thing for a Progressive to think. American society in the past had imperfections and injustices; therefore we shouldn’t talk about it having been great; that’s the Progressive mentality.
What it misses is, that all societies everywhere have imperfections and injustices, and this will always be so. The U.S.A. was, and is, great because it had, and has, fewer imperfections and injustices than other nations. That’s why so many people—so many millions, tens of millions of people—wanted, and want, to come and live here.
I got to know the U.S.A. during its Golden Age—the third quarter of the 20th century—and mostly from outside: I grew up in England, didn’t actually get here until 1973. Boy, America was great! —free, rich, victorious, generous, creative…Britain was in imperial decline, half of Europe was under the Soviet yoke, Africa was sinking into post-colonial chaos, India and Pakistan were at loggerheads, South America was run by buffoons like Juan Perón, and in China tens of millions were starving to death under the crudest, cruellest kind of totalitarian dictatorship.
America was great—with very restricted immigration and men mostly running things. We had imperfections, sure; but by comparison with any other country at that time…Well, there was no comparison. We were the greatest.
The Progressive vision is narrow, provincial, and present-centric. The past, according to them, was bad; the present is just tolerable; the future will be radiant.
That is no basis for policy. There are good reasons to think that if we don’t get a grip on mass immigration, America’s future will be Venezuela. There are good reasons to think that if the insulting and belittling of men under labels like “toxic masculinity” keeps going, the things that men do better than women—leadership, risk-taking, science, engineering—won’t get done, or will get done elsewhere, not in America.
Whether Andrew Cuomo understands any of that, I don’t know. He has to pretend not to understand it because of the threat from his Left—from people like Cynthia Nixon, who surely don’t understand it.
That is the dilemma of white men in the Democrat Party today. They deserve it.
Lance Welton is the pen name of a science journalist living in New York.