Dysgenic Fertility
From Conservapedia The dysgenic fertility theory posits an inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility (Lower intelligence people having more children).
As far as dysgenic fertility (people with lower intelligence having more children) and its effect on population's intelligence, the abstract for journal article IQ and fertility: A cross-national study published in the journal Intelligence states: "Many studies have found a small to moderate negative correlation between IQ and fertility rates. However, these studies have been limited to the United States and some European countries. The present study was a between-nation study using national IQ scores and national fertility rates. There were strong negative correlations found between national IQ and three national indicators of fertility."[1]
The abstract for the journal article Do high-status people really have fewer children? : Education, income, and fertility in the contemporary U.S published in the journal Human Nature states:
| “ | We find that increased education is strongly associated with delayed childbearing in both sexes and is also moderately associated with decreased completed or near-completed fertility. Women in the general population with higher adult income have fewer children, but this relationship does not hold within all educational groups, including our sample with elite educations. Higher-income men, however, do not have fewer children in the general population and in fact have lower childlessness rates. Further, higher income in men is positively associated with fertility among our sample with elite educations as well as within the general population among those with college educations. Such findings undermine simple statements on the relationship between status and fertility.[2] | ” |
The journal Intelligence published a journal article entitled IQ and fertility: A cross-national study and its abstract states: "Many studies have found a small to moderate negative correlation between IQ and fertility rates. However, these studies have been limited to the United States and some European countries. The present study was a between-nation study using national IQ scores and national fertility rates. There were strong negative correlations found between national IQ and three national indicators of fertility."[3]
An excerpt for abstract for the journal article The decline of the world's IQ published in the journal Intelligence by Richard Flynn and John Harvey states:
| “ | Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of −0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world's genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world's genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. In the period 1950–2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this “negative Flynn Effect” will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence.[4] | ” |
IQ, socioeconomic status, fertility rate and government pronatal policies in the developed world[edit]
Education is positively correlated with attaining a higher economic status. And there is a positive correction between a higher IQ and an individual's higher socioeconomic status.[5] And as noted above, in the U.S., increased education is strongly associated with delayed childbearing in both sexes.
Natalism is "the policy or practice of encouraging the bearing of children, especially government support of a higher birthrate."[6]
The 2015 article France, a Pro Natalist Country states:
| “ | In addition to the rapidly decreasing support ratio, France’s population also faces the problem of a falling birth rate & low total fertility rate. The fertility rate of France in 1960 was 2.75 children per woman, well above the replacement level of 2.1. However by 1992 the total fertility rate had fallen to 1.67, substantially lower than the replacement level. This low fertility rate is due to an increasing proportion of educated women who are pursuing careers. Today, 81% of women in France are employed. Women are now focusing on their careers rather than on raising families, resulting in women putting off having children until they’re 30 or deciding to just not have children, especially middle class women. This has the effect of lowering both the fertility rate and the birth rate to levels below replacement level, resulting in smaller successive generations. This, combined with an ageing population, presents the problem of a low number of economically active individuals in the future, resulting in a decreased support ratio and raising costs to care for the elderly which ultimately increases the strain on France’s treasury.
In order to combat the falling fertility rate, France has employed an aggressive pro-natalist policy which employs a system of monetary incentives and rewards for women giving birth to multiple children which seems to have helped raise France’s total fertility rate to 1.98, the second highest in Europe next to Ireland, but still below replacement level. In 1939, the French government passed the “Code de la famille”, a complex legislation that introduced a set of pro-natalist policies in order to attempt to improve France’s flailing fertility rate. One of the key aspects of the legislation was a series of incentives offered to working women, in order to encourage them to have children. The legislation introduced a long maternity period of 20 weeks to 40 weeks depending on the number of children the woman has already given birth to. In addition to the long maternity leave, women also receive full pay during the maternity period, the idea of which is to ensure that women don’t lose out on their careers should they have children. In addition to fully payed maternity leave, the legislation also introduced a series of generous grants to women having children, especially multiple children. When a women has her third child, the French government will pay her up to €1,000 per month, depending on how well off she already is, as a reward. This is just €200 less than the French minimum wage. This, combined with next to free public transport (families are given a “large family card”, halving metro costs), €174 a year for extra-curricular activities and free entrance to public swimming pools and other public facilities, essentially means that the poorest families in France can raise a child for virtually nothing and the most well off can raise one for around €500. In addition to grants and discounts on public services, the French government also offers subsidised state run childcare for children of 3 months, again, ensuring that women can continue to work after giving birth with minimal financial penalties. The level of subsidisation works on a scale of €0 to €500 a month, again, depending on the family’s income. Families also receive full tax subsidisation until the youngest child reaches 18, further reducing the financial impact of having multiple children. Finally, for when women reach retirement age, the French government offers full pension schemes for mothers of multiple of children. Recently, the French government announced plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 (by 2018) in an attempt to increase the support ratio by reducing the number of people who are classed as elderly. In addition to the increased retirement age, people will need to work 41.5 years in 2020 to claim a full pension versus the 40.5 years they must work now... Looking at data currently available regarding France’s population, the code de la famille would hint at success. Frances fertility rate has risen from 1.67 in 1992 to 1.98 today and, whilst this is still below replacement level, it indicates that the code de la famille is raising the fertility rate as desired. However, the cost of this pro-natalist policy is diminishing its success. Given France’s current budget deficit of 7.5% its GDP and the current situation regarding the euro, the country could struggle to fund the pro-natalist policies in the near future, which could limit its success and ultimately result in the policy failing, worsening the issue of paying for the elderly’s social care.[7] |
” |
Pro-natal policies can work in developed countries, but they come with a hefty price tag.[8]
See also[edit]
Notes[edit]
- ↑ Abstract for journal article Intelligence, IQ and fertility: A cross-national study by Steven M. Shatz, Volume 36, Issue 2, March–April 2008, Pages 109-111
- ↑ Human Nature, Do high-status people really have fewer children? : Education, income, and fertility in the contemporary U.S, 2006 Dec;17(4):377-92. doi: 10.1007/s12110-006-1001-3.
- ↑ IQ and fertility: A cross-national study by Steven M.Shatz, Intelligence, Volume 36, Issue 2, March–April 2008, Pages 109-111
- ↑ The decline of the world's IQ by Richard Flynn and John Harvey, Intelligence 36 (2008) 112–120
- ↑ Socioeconomic status and the growth of intelligence from infancy through adolescence by Sophie von Stumma and Robert Plomin, Intelligence. 2015 Jan-Feb; 48: 30–36.
- ↑ Natalism
- ↑ France, a Pro Natalist Country by Alex Jackson
- ↑ Pro-Natal Policies Work, But They Come With a Hefty Price Tag by Lyman Stone, Institute for Family Studies
Categories: [Sociology]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 03/07/2023 12:37:24 | 3 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Dysgenic_fertility | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
KSF