Lion of the Blogosphere

Incredible dysgenic breeding in the Atlantic

According to the recent Atlantic article about 27-year-olds, 12% of 27-year-olds with bachelor’s degrees have children, and 45%* of 27-year-olds without bachelor’s degrees have children.

That’s a huge difference. Has dysgenic breeding accelerated during the last decade?

*The 45% figure was not in the article, but was calculated using principles learned in my 8th grade algebra class.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 31, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Posted in Biology

47 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It makes sense…lots of resources (food, housing, etc.) make life easy…

    IQ is associated with decreased fertility.
    Smart people mature slower, and are in it for the long haul.

    A crackhead alcoholic with a middle school diploma and bad health needs to have kids as soon as they can before their body gives out or they end up in jail or dead. With medicine and S8 and food stamps, these people can fuck around for a bit longer.

    Being smart is about *surviving*, which smart people tend to be better at.
    Being dumb is about *reproducing*, because you make hay while the sun shines.

    Natural selection (aka the free market) will fix it.


    January 31, 2014 at 10:14 AM

    • That’s true, but our public policies are, and have been for several generations now, at odds with natural selection and actively seek to promote dysgenic reproduction (and, coincidentally, legions of Democrat voters to perpetuate the scheme).


      January 31, 2014 at 3:16 PM

    • So why was chinese population so high?


      February 1, 2014 at 8:29 AM

  2. Idiocracy was not a movie.

    It was prophecy.

    Oswald Spengler

    January 31, 2014 at 10:28 AM

  3. What matters is the TOTAL lifetime number of surviving progeny, not the number you have by age 27.


    January 31, 2014 at 10:30 AM

    • They both matter. A group that has children earlier will grow at a faster rate than a group that has them later in life.

      Jokah Macpherson

      January 31, 2014 at 2:19 PM

  4. Has dysgenic breeding accelerated during the last decade?

    No, it just moved across the Rio Grande from points South.


    January 31, 2014 at 10:36 AM

  5. I was reading someplace recently- maybe Return of Kings, maybe Sailer, I don’t know- about the life script for educated people. In the old days a young man of higher birth would see the world, have sex with a variety of lower-class women, then in his late 30’s or maybe later settle down with a nice girl. Now this is not only for men, and upper-class men, but all college-educated people.

    It allowed the young man to both enjoy sexual freedom and also be a respectable husband and father. It makes sense if you live under certain restrictions- if you need to leave you children assets, and send them to expensive schools, you should marry later and have fewer children. The children of the poor fend for themselves, they can go to college if they want but their parents aren’t going to pay for it, so at lower class levels their is less, not more restriction on reproduction. At higher levels this disappears, I deal with rich people and they often have large families by current standards, three or four kids.

    Sailer has of course written a lot about affordable family formation. Absent feminism though this shouldn’t affect things that much. A pretty 24 year old woman from a nice school and family background will have no problem finding a 35 year old law partner who wants to settle down, and she can start having kids right away and have two to four depending on his income. If she is the 35 year old law partner looking to settle down, she will be lucky to have one.


    January 31, 2014 at 10:59 AM

    • A pretty 24-year-old can probably find a 26-year-old man on a good career track. No need to date older men.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      January 31, 2014 at 12:07 PM

      • 26-year-old man will likely not marry her (at least in big cities on East and West coasts) and will use her a as a medium-term lay option. Guy’s nowhere near settled and needs flexibility to start climbing the ladder. Also needs to accrue savings for overpriced wedding, fancy-pants house, dog, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and multiple annual vacations.

        To all the fellas on here, I impart advice that I was given ad naseum from a lot of older guys I worked with in banking: don’t get married until you’re 35. You’ll still be in decent shape to have and raise kids, but much more settled and certain of your career path. You can afford your higher-end lifestyle, which becomes a lot more expensive with kids. You won’t fight about money much, which is one of the pillars of a successful marriage (the others being communication, religion, having kids, health). You won’t screw up the family if you decide to change careers. You will have sowed your wild oats.


        January 31, 2014 at 12:48 PM

      • This is actually a reply to DdR, below.

        No, don’t wait until you are 35 to get married. I met my wife at 35, and got married at 37. I was VERY lucky to meet a single, attractive non-mother at my age. Without one or two more coincidences, we could very easily not have met, and I could have lived single (I am a reasonably attractive guy, reasonably successful, blah blah blah).

        35 is too late. Probably late 20’s is ideal, but really, you should be looking for a soulmate by junior year of college (21 or so). That doesn’t mean you’ll meet her then: most 21 year olds are too young to have a brain. But every year after college, the field narrows. Be aware of that. If you don’t meet her in college, put a great deal of effort into meeting someone you like and are compatible with immediately. If its hard at 23, its harder at 27, and harder at 30, and so on.

        The takeaway from all this is that the earlier you have your shit together, the better off you will be (and consequently: schools and parents and coaches and churches who are failing to educate teenager to be adults are failing them). As someone who didn’t have his shit together until his early 30’s, I know from experience. Like I said: I got lucky.



        January 31, 2014 at 1:17 PM

      • This reply is to anonymousse:

        I’m 34 (almost 35). I’m dating a 25-year-old (met her when she was 23) and will likely be proposing this year.

        Your first mistake was trying to wed a woman in your age bracket.

        Odds are against an American male having a successful marriage and great family if you marry standard high-educated American woman in late 20s. On the one hand you still likely don’t have your crap together, don’t have much savings, may need to move for better career path. On the other hand the girl’s likely working and making a decent living and thus can always jump ship if she feels like you’re floundering. Which can happen as you firgure life out.

        Are you serious about meeting your soulmate in college? While I wish society reverted more to the technicolor 1950s, that is in no way achievable today on average. With American girls today?

        Every single guy friend of mine who got married before 27 is divorced. While anectodal, all of these marriages fell apart because of money issues (or career path, my one buddy was a major in the Army).

        Guys on this board who are older than 35: heed my advice and wait until your 35. Unless you have your crap together, meet an amazing woman, and have substantial savings, your odds greatly increase of having to stare down the divorce gun barrel if you marry at 27.


        January 31, 2014 at 1:42 PM

      • Relative M:F income correlates strongly with marital success, and an older groom will have an easier time being the main breadwinner.

        Young grooms, especially in this day and age, often develop major regrets. The guy who marries at 25 discovers after a few years that he and his wife’s SMV are going in opposite directions. Everyone else is having fun but him? He’s getting more IOIs, and can’t act on it! When did he start putting on a white undershirt every day? He has a couple of adorable young kids…now what? Stick it out for 18 more years, or look for trouble?


        January 31, 2014 at 2:17 PM

      • @anonymousse There’s no way it’s harder to get married at 27 than it is at 23. Men’s sexual value doesn’t peak until late 20s at earliest. Career gets better, life experiences/game gets better, looks basically stay the same if not get better (how many 26 yo girls swoon for 52 yo Clooney? 39 yo Dicaprio? 33 yo Channing Tatum? 19 yo Justin Bieber?)

        If you really think you met the right girl, then lock it up. But there’s no reason to feel like you have to get married before 30. As a teen, I envisioned myself getting married by 26. I’m 28 and single. I just got out of a 3 year relationship that in a different era would likely have led to marriage, but I have to say my options are as good as they’ve ever been and I feel very little pressure to get serious.


        It would be nice to think that a 24 yo girl could settle down with a 26 yo guy on a good career track. But honestly, if you want a girl to have kids while she’s still in her 20s, you’re asking her to take a serious hit to her career and her chances for an interesting life outside of her family. You have to pay for the house and the vacations that she could have had, and a 26 yo, even on a good career track, will not be in a position to do that for another several years in a high cost metropolitan area.


        January 31, 2014 at 3:18 PM

      • ” But honestly, if you want a girl to have kids while she’s still in her 20s, you’re asking her to take a serious hit to her career and her chances for an interesting life outside of her family.”

        This will not be a problem in convincing the girl, because it turns out that 24 year olds are not super realistic about what it takes to have a fabulous career. (I had a vague idea that I would be a stay at home mom for a few years, and then when I was ready once again to grace the working world with my presence, I would be greeted with whoops of joy and showers of cash. Well, ha ha ha, but I didn’t know that then.) The real question is whether her parents are feminist enough to clue her in, or whether they want grandkids bad enough to let it slide.

        “You have to pay for the house and the vacations that she could have had, and a 26 yo, even on a good career track, will not be in a position to do that for another several years in a high cost metropolitan area.”

        It is not hard to meet the life style expectations of a 24 year old. I remember a friend in graduate school whose friends were impressed with her finace’s earning power because in his department you got a stipend that ran to Kraft macaroni and cheese rather than the store brand. Again, the 24yo’s parents are wiser, but then they probably don’t care whether you’ll be able to support her in the city or have to move out to the boonies.

        Female POV

        January 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM

    • Well a 35 years old female law partner will marry a younger and ambitious guy, although the expectation is that it won’t last long.


      January 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM

    • You mean like Wendy Davis did?


      January 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM

    • I dated a 36 year old guy when I was 22, before ultimately marrying the 26 year old guy I met when I was 24, so I guess that makes me the voice of experience here. A couple of points about the wait until you’re 35 strategy:

      1. If you decide to wait until you are 35 to start looking for a wife, be aware that you are placing a big bet on your hair. I know it sounds awful and shallow, but I remember at the time having to admit to myself that I never would have gone out with the 36 year old if he had been balding or going grey, as many men his age or younger were doing.

      2. Even if you retain your youthful looks, the maturity gap is going to be an issue. When you’re 22, you’re still at that age when it takes you about 5 minutes to feel like you’ve known someone your whole life, and you’re in the income bracket where bumming favors off of friends is the default way of getting things done. It struck me as a huge character defect in the 36yo that he would, say, want to rent a car instead of letting my friends pick us up at the airport. It made him seem standoffish and spendthrift and frankly creepy. Now that I’m in my late thirties I realize his behavior was completely normal for a person of this age, but at the time it was one of the major factors contributing to our break up.

      3. Her friends and family are going to hate you. “If he were serious about getting married, he’d be married by now. He’s just stringing you along and using you.” I don’t think this was true of the particular guy I was dating, but that’s sure what my family believed, and they were not shy about reminding me of their belief.

      4. Your dating habits and strategies for the medium term relationships you’ve been passing the time with are going to be all wrong with a young lady looking for marriage. For example, the 36yo dealt with point 3 above by “standing up for himself”, a.k.a. getting into arguments with my sister whenever he had an opening. Maybe standing up to the family is a good strategy when your girlfriend is thinking medium term, but when she’s looking for someone to spend family holidays with for the rest of her life, the last thing you want to be is someone who can’t get along with her sister. Another major factor contributing to the break up.

      And one bonus point about finding a marriage minded 26yo when you’re 24 (in Manhattan no less, actually):

      It is a snap. You drop a couple of anvil sized hints on the quiet guy at church that he will not get snubbed if he asks you out, and voila. I was married at 26 and made it just under the wire to be part of the 12% to have a baby at 27.

      Female POV

      January 31, 2014 at 3:44 PM

      • “You drop a couple of anvil sized hints on the quiet guy at church that he will not get snubbed if he asks you out”

        20-something people go to church in Manhattan? Solo?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM

      • “20-something people go to church in Manhattan? Solo?”

        Of course they do, some of them anyway. Why not solo?

        Female POV

        February 1, 2014 at 1:09 AM

    • It is true that rich people often have large families, at least when one uses the contemporary definition of a “large family,” i.e. 3-4 kids. Rich people often marry younger than their upper middle class peers, too. My kids attend a school with lots of old money types, Many of the parents are doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc. are in their 50’s and 60’s (my third grader has a classmate whose dad is 61, and another whose dad is 62), the parents with a lot of family money tend to be a good deal younger.

      It’s kind of nice to see the rich people marrying young and having large families. What I cannot figure out is why they do it. I have often wondered about that. Some of them were raised in secure, loving families. It’s easy to see why those folks would marry young, they had such a positive experience growing up that they are looking forward to starting families of their own. Since they aren’t burdened with student loan debt, etc., they go ahead and get married and have kids in mid 20’s.

      But even the rich people from more dysfunctional backgrounds, the ones whose parents divorced, etc., STILL tend to have families fairly young. That is the REALLY interesting part. Perhaps it is because their peers from healthier family situations are getting married and having kids, or maybe it is because wealthy people prioritize family. I’m not sure. It’s nice to see, though. I am glad when older people have kids — I’d hate to see someone miss out — but it is kind of freaky to see geriatric parents in their 50’s and 60’s. OTOH it is really nice to see a young couple in their late 20’s with 4 kids, there is something about it that brings a smile to one’s face.

      Joe Schmoe

      January 31, 2014 at 4:15 PM

      • I think this goes back to what I wrote in a recent blog post, that too many people feel that they can’t afford to get married. Someone needs to get the pro-family message out there that everyone can afford to get married, and you don’t need a $30,000 ring or a $100,000 wedding.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        January 31, 2014 at 4:45 PM

      • I suspect the young rich parents use their family money to hire a nanny, which makes early childbearing less of a career and personal sacrifice.

        Female POV

        February 1, 2014 at 1:12 AM

  6. Just playing around on Excel, it looks like after 200 years and assuming equal TFR, a prole cohort with an average generation of 24 years will end up with quadruple the population of a SWPL cohort with an average generation of 32 years.

    To put it another way, if the prole cohort has a TFR of 2, the SWPL cohort needs a TFR of 2.52 to keep up.


    January 31, 2014 at 11:00 AM

  7. In the UK, the borderline retardation of the newest generations of children has become a widely accepted fact. If you read the Daily Mail, for instance, you will find regular stories about how most kids today are freaking dumb and badly educated.

    There may be some moral panic going on, but I am sure there is more to it. Britain has one of the oldest welfare States, and important genetic damage can take only three generations.


    January 31, 2014 at 11:02 AM

  8. “Has dysgenic breeding accelerated during the last decade?”

    It’s accelerated during the last five decades. The real name for Johnson’s “Great Society” should have been the “Dysgenic Society” because it put into place all the “safety nets” required to initiate an explosion of dysgenic breeding across all racial groups. Consistent with their sprinting speed, blacks were out of the gate fastest on dysgenic breeding, but prole whites made up a lot of ground, and Hispanics just fell right into it naturally.


    January 31, 2014 at 11:41 AM

  9. Velocity is an underrated concept in analyzing population reproduction patterns. Even if these college grads eventually get around to having kids, they’re still behind.

    I’m always hesitant to conclude that dysgenic breeding patterns will have a noticeable effect within any of our lifetimes, though. Evoluation is fast but is it THAT fast? Besides, who knows whether the current trends will continue.

    Jokah Macpherson

    January 31, 2014 at 11:58 AM

    • Dysgenic breeding doesn’t require evolution. It’s about who is depositing sperm.

      In the ghe-toe, since the start of the universal welfare age, alpha bucks no longer had to support their women, so they rapidly became the go-to choice for spawning fatherless children.

      Let’s say (totally making up numbers) before welfare in a given community you had 30% of impregnations coming from bucks and 70% from Urkels. Well after welfare you have maybe 90% of the impregnations happening via bucks and only 10% from Urkels. The buck children are immediately more violent, have less impulse control, etc. So in a single generation you already have a significant problem. A few generations in and you have overwhelmed the community dysgenically. And since ghetto communities start reproducing very young (early teens) the process moves even faster. And on the nurture side things get rapidly worse too because the dysgenic girl babies become mothers at 15 and they are worse mothers than their own mothers were.


      January 31, 2014 at 2:18 PM

      • You fail to understand regression to mean.


        February 1, 2014 at 8:32 AM

  10. Yes, and 27 is a snapshot. Among the 45%, how many children do they already have? Among the 12% how many more will they have?

    It gets really depressing when you figure in time between generations. Over the course of 100 years, the college grads waiting to their 25-30’s will have barely 4 generations, the underclass, with its teen mothers, 18-20 y.o. will have 5 generations. Do the math on that one.


    January 31, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    • Looks like in the time for my comment to be approved from moderation, Fiddlesticks read my mind and already did the math. 🙂


      January 31, 2014 at 12:17 PM

  11. People who go to college have impulse control (long time horizon) and are smart enough to plan birth control and sex.


    January 31, 2014 at 12:13 PM

  12. Also a bachelors degree isn’t worth squat. So a man with just a BA hardly has the status or high-paying job to attract (white) women who probably also has a BA.

    It’s has become insanely difficult for an average (white) man to attract a white woman for marriage and family.


    January 31, 2014 at 12:29 PM

    • (Few high status jobs require post-college degrees outside of law and medicine.)


      February 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM

      • Finance is the only high status field where a post bac degree is not required. Other than that, you need to be a higher up in Corporate America to garner status without a Masters or PhD.


        February 2, 2014 at 8:00 PM

    • Let alone, getting casual sex from (White) women these days.


      February 2, 2014 at 8:01 PM

  13. “Has dysgenic breeding accelerated during the last decade?”

    I wouldn’t say the last decade only. Shockley was talking about this over 40 years ago. However, one must consider generational demographic shifts. For those in Rio Linda, this means that the dysgenic fertility rates for each group may not have changed but that each group’s percentage of the population may have changed.


    January 31, 2014 at 1:00 PM

  14. On the upshot, a number of those 27 year olds will have kids at a later date. The number of generations are reduced, as others mentioned. But it’s not too late to do your part, Lion!


    January 31, 2014 at 2:23 PM

  15. The question is, why is the Lion wasting his smart Jew-seed? Do your part if you are worried about dysgenics.


    January 31, 2014 at 4:58 PM

  16. It doesn’t matter. Greg Clark already said the upper class’s seeds do stick while the early-breeding lower class seeds do not stick for too long.

    William Shaxpear, the seed dealer, had 3 children but his line died out in 2 generations. Edward de Vere, who actually wrote the plays, still has living descendants.

    Most people of English stock are descendants of the noblemen and landholders around that time.


    January 31, 2014 at 6:47 PM

    • Sorry to be argumentative, but de Vere had nothing to do with Shakespeare’s plays. Nothing. At. All. And there are plenty of descendents of Shakespeare’s sister. One, Thomas Hart, is thought to have come to Virginia in the mid-1600s.


      February 1, 2014 at 4:47 AM

      • The seed dealer was not even literate. And it is not easy to ascertain the descendants of the seed dealer’s 8 siblings; it is thought that only his sister Joan, the ancestor of the Thomas Hart who might or might not be the ancestor of thomas hart benton, may have living descendants now. 1 out of 9 is not a good probability.

        Incidentally de Vere also has living descendants in America. One of them was interviewed and he was the dept head of UC Davis med school, not exactly a prole.


        February 1, 2014 at 10:01 AM

      • “The seed dealer was not even literate.” ——– Facts not in evidence. And, the record suggests he had more than enough contacts through his family with the Goodere family who raised and educated other youths of high talent at their private academy in Warwickshire including the poet Michael Drayton. The number of Shakespeare family contacts with Warwickshire families involved in the literary arts is significant and sufficient to alleviate any need for an idiotic alternate theory such as the de Vere nonsense. The so-called ‘puzzle’ of Shakespeare’s education was solved long ago. This de Vere stuff is just a massive pile of shite.


        February 1, 2014 at 12:01 PM

      • The seed dealer could never spell his name correctly and he never used the common spelling of his famous name.

        Also whether what you are saying is true or not, deVere has descendants and the seed dealer does not, and his family line was carried by one single sister out of 9 siblings from a working class family.

        That is the point relevant to this thread.

        Stratfordians would like to claim that the greatest writer of the English language is a prole, for political reasons and not to rock the boat. But we do know now that proles simply don’t write anything useful. Even writers from seemingly poor backgrounds seem to somehow receive enough education to write coherent sentences, showing that at least they were not proles to begin with.


        February 1, 2014 at 10:56 PM

  17. When you consider how far standards to get into college have dropped in the last 50 years, things look even worse because those college grads are just 100+ IQs.


    January 31, 2014 at 7:36 PM

  18. you once posted that religiosity rather than iq determined number of children, but my own impression is that the rich and the subhuman reproduce themselves and the middle do not…so much. the result is eventually eloi and morlocks.

    jorge videla

    January 31, 2014 at 10:22 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: