10 ms·

Quoting Spandrell: At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intel

Quoting Spandrell: At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intelligence go to get shredded in the corporate and bureaucratic rat-race, depriving humanity of the biological building blocks for a better future.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
est31 8y ago
Is there a study that confirms this? I couldn't find any links in the blog post you seem to have copied it from. https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/tucker-carlsons-war-against-woke-capital-and-the-future-of-the-right/ https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/tucker-carlson...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- xmmrm 8y ago
  Just compare TFR and average IQ tables. The pattern is obvious.
jackfrodo 8y ago
My understanding is that Spandrell considers himself a "race realist." Please don't bring right-wing racist thought into HN.
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  I didn't see anything right wing or racist in the original quote, did you? It was an interesting observation regardless of who made it.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    When we quote someone, we usually include the context of the quoted person. The same sentence is different when said by Dalai Lama and Usama bin Laden.
    - Stratoscope 8y ago
      Sure, you would cite the name of the person you were quoting, just as the OP comment did. But you certainly could quote bin Laden here if it were relevant and interesting. It doesn't mean you agree with him or the terrible things he did. I don't know anything about Spandrell or what else the person has said or written, so all I had to go by was the quote itself. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. Not that I agree with all of it. I especially do not like the concept of an IQ scale. Different people are good at different kinds of things, and I think IQ is a dangerous oversimplification.
- ghtrytttttnsa 8y ago
  Please don't bring those ridiculous and naive leftist thoughts into HN.
sp527 8y ago
Not sure how he’s defining replacement, and but the target for a stable population would have to be over 2.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Over 2.1ish due to childhood deaths and accidents before reproducing.
Nav_Panel 8y ago
What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation to goodness! I find Spandrell (and Land, who helped popularize the idea) atrocious.
- jlawson 8y ago
  You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.
  - exergy 8y ago
    'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. What's more, people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.
    - iguy 8y ago
      He obviously means "capacity to do good" as in capacity to keep a high-tech society running, and continue making technological improvements. He cares both about the cream of the crop for the next generation of cancer drugs (or computers), and the solid middle for being able to run modern accounting, retail supply chains, large-scale farming. Obviously "doing good" often means other things too, like calling your mom, and volunteering at a soup kitchen. Morally good. I think it's pretty clear from context that this isn't what he's talking about.
magduf 8y ago
This doesn't fully explain why humans don't want to have a lot of kids. Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. (For instance, as a single guy, I'm far more likely to be interested in dating a single mother with girls than one with boys; little boys are just too destructive and disobedient.) Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to. If they don't have a religion telling them they need to, and they have a good career and a very comfortable lifestyle that affords, why would they want to go to all the trouble that raising a lot of kids requires? In addition to that, kids are very costly in today's society, and with adults not living near their families so much, you don't get any help with your kids when you need it, so that makes it even more unattractive. Having a lot of kids made sense back in the days when you needed the help on your farm, and your whole extended family (or village) lived together and could collectively share the burdens of child-rearing. Now, it just doesn't. The answer to me is simple: we need to outsource child-rearing to the State, as shown in the novel "Brave New World" where children were made in factories and then raised by trained professionals.
- bantunes 8y ago
  > Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. Suck it up. What, do you want having kids to be as seamless as an Uber Eats order? It's not. It's hard work. I'm sure your parents gave up on a lot to have you, too. That's part of being an adult.
  - IC4RUS 8y ago
    They're not saying they want it to be easy, they're saying they don't want to do it and don't have to (which ties into the rest of what they're saying) I think you're missing the point of the comment.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >That's part of being an adult. As countless adults these days have proven, no, it's not. You can just opt out of the whole thing.
misja 8y ago
Even though intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate, it is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring. The net effect is not clear. Apart from that, when you differentiate between men and women, the correlations turn out to be different: while women still have a negative correlation, for men the correlation between IQ and fertility rate turns positive. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
- iguy 8y ago
  Right, but that positive slope is only for within-country variation.
tomjen3 8y ago
For thousands of years (tens of thousands, probably) cities were a demographic drain. More people died in London than were born there, and the cities only survived because you can make a lot more money there (including enough not to starve to death). Perhaps in the future the same thing will happen: kids will be reared in cheap places, then move to cities for the opportunities there, then fail to produce at replacement levels, and get buffed up by people moving in to the city from the country.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

est31 8y ago

Is there a study that confirms this? I couldn't find any links in the blog post you seem to have copied it from. https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/tucker-carlsons-war-against-woke-capital-and-the-future-of-the-right/ https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/tucker-carlson...

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
xmmrm 8y ago
Just compare TFR and average IQ tables. The pattern is obvious.

jackfrodo 8y ago

My understanding is that Spandrell considers himself a "race realist." Please don't bring right-wing racist thought into HN.

Stratoscope 8y ago
I didn't see anything right wing or racist in the original quote, did you? It was an interesting observation regardless of who made it.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  When we quote someone, we usually include the context of the quoted person. The same sentence is different when said by Dalai Lama and Usama bin Laden.
  - Stratoscope 8y ago
    Sure, you would cite the name of the person you were quoting, just as the OP comment did. But you certainly could quote bin Laden here if it were relevant and interesting. It doesn't mean you agree with him or the terrible things he did. I don't know anything about Spandrell or what else the person has said or written, so all I had to go by was the quote itself. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. Not that I agree with all of it. I especially do not like the concept of an IQ scale. Different people are good at different kinds of things, and I think IQ is a dangerous oversimplification.
ghtrytttttnsa 8y ago
Please don't bring those ridiculous and naive leftist thoughts into HN.

sp527 8y ago

Not sure how he’s defining replacement, and but the target for a stable population would have to be over 2.

pixl97 8y ago
Over 2.1ish due to childhood deaths and accidents before reproducing.

Nav_Panel 8y ago

What a terrible quote, horrible in the sense of reducing Man to the sum of his capability to build ever greater machines. Surely intelligence bears no relation to goodness! I find Spandrell (and Land, who helped popularize the idea) atrocious.

jlawson 8y ago
You're mixing up goodness as in deserving, vs goodness as in capacity to do good. Spandrell never said anything like smart people are more deserving. He says smart people have more capacity to accomplish things which most people consider good. E.g safety, comfort, health, stability, wealth - and not just for themselves but for others too. Hard to argue with as far as I can see.
- exergy 8y ago
  'Capacity' to do 'good' (even per your definition) is so strongly reliant on the environment that one exists in, that I do not think you can defend your position in a rational manner. I also find it mildly offensive that your comment, and that of Spandrell, implies that smartness is measured only in IQ. High IQ is only a predictor of high test-solving abilities. What's more, people living in poor countries and outside of cities aren't 'incapable' of doing good. They are often poorly educated, lack role models, lack good parenting, lack a good peer group, and fundamentally, lack opportunity and a financially stable childhood. Virtually all of it is structural injustices thrown their way through the roll of a dice.
  - iguy 8y ago
    He obviously means "capacity to do good" as in capacity to keep a high-tech society running, and continue making technological improvements. He cares both about the cream of the crop for the next generation of cancer drugs (or computers), and the solid middle for being able to run modern accounting, retail supply chains, large-scale farming. Obviously "doing good" often means other things too, like calling your mom, and volunteering at a soup kitchen. Morally good. I think it's pretty clear from context that this isn't what he's talking about.

magduf 8y ago

This doesn't fully explain why humans don't want to have a lot of kids. Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. (For instance, as a single guy, I'm far more likely to be interested in dating a single mother with girls than one with boys; little boys are just too destructive and disobedient.) Smart people aren't having so many kids now because they don't have to. If they don't have a religion telling them they need to, and they have a good career and a very comfortable lifestyle that affords, why would they want to go to all the trouble that raising a lot of kids requires? In addition to that, kids are very costly in today's society, and with adults not living near their families so much, you don't get any help with your kids when you need it, so that makes it even more unattractive. Having a lot of kids made sense back in the days when you needed the help on your farm, and your whole extended family (or village) lived together and could collectively share the burdens of child-rearing. Now, it just doesn't. The answer to me is simple: we need to outsource child-rearing to the State, as shown in the novel "Brave New World" where children were made in factories and then raised by trained professionals.

bantunes 8y ago
> Have you ever been around kids? They're really a pain in the ass, especially if they're boys. Suck it up. What, do you want having kids to be as seamless as an Uber Eats order? It's not. It's hard work. I'm sure your parents gave up on a lot to have you, too. That's part of being an adult.
- IC4RUS 8y ago
  They're not saying they want it to be easy, they're saying they don't want to do it and don't have to (which ties into the rest of what they're saying) I think you're missing the point of the comment.
- magduf 8y ago
  >That's part of being an adult. As countless adults these days have proven, no, it's not. You can just opt out of the whole thing.

misja 8y ago

Even though intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate, it is positively correlated with survival rate of offspring. The net effect is not clear. Apart from that, when you differentiate between men and women, the correlations turn out to be different: while women still have a negative correlation, for men the correlation between IQ and fertility rate turns positive. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

iguy 8y ago
Right, but that positive slope is only for within-country variation.

tomjen3 8y ago

For thousands of years (tens of thousands, probably) cities were a demographic drain. More people died in London than were born there, and the cities only survived because you can make a lot more money there (including enough not to starve to death). Perhaps in the future the same thing will happen: kids will be reared in cheap places, then move to cities for the opportunities there, then fail to produce at replacement levels, and get buffed up by people moving in to the city from the country.