Notes on Sterilization

The fact fertility rates are negativity correlated with IQ necessitates mandatory sterilization of individuals with IQs less than 80-90, in order to reverse dysgenic societal decay. Due to high time preference and other factors, Low-IQ people tend to be capricious and aggressive and exact a toll on society, even if they contribute in the short-run in terms of consumer spending and unskilled labor. Although sterilization may initially hit the economy, it would have a multitude of benefits in the long-run in the form of crime reduction (although white collar crime is a problem), decreased entitlement spending [1], and improved general welfare (compare Northern Europe, with its rich history of science and culture, to Africa or South America). Not once, in years reading hundreds of right-wing blogs and thousands of posts, has anyone outright advocated sterilization even though as recently as 50 years ago it was not that controversial. According to Wiki, “A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of ‘mental defectives’, 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.” It’s the third-rail of the ‘right’. It’s as if procreation is a sort of inalienable ‘right’ that should never be impugned upon; hell, even the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant it. Life in the context of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, as per the Declaration of Independence, means one’s own life, not the right to bring life into the world. Everyone wants to defer to socially palatable solutions that may not work. Defaulting to ‘god and stronger families’, although socially safe, is not good enough because it makes the implicit assumption that low-IQ people can be assimilated into such a structure and or ignores the dysgenic effects of low IQ. Respectability is a sort of transparent box what we voluntarily lock ourselves in, where the truth plainly is visible on the other side but we cannot reach it or choose to ignore it.

Due to the negative correlation between fertility and IQ, sterilization combined with sweeping immigration reform would likely cause the population growth of the United States to flat-line or even go negative, even if generous incentives are offered for high-IQ couples to procreate, similar to the situation in Europe:

A fertility rate of 2 is considered the minimum needed to sustain a population, a rate which the United States slightly surpasses, but much of Europe falls short, and this is manifested by population projections:

By virtue of the normal distribution of IQ scores, low-IQ parents and countries on occasion produce high-IQ children, although at a much reduced frequency. Hence, paradoxically, it’s possible that sterilization would lead to a higher concentration of high-IQ people but fewer total of them. [2] This means America would both get smarter and dumber at the same time. To help mitigate the problem of low birth rates and reduced ‘total intelligence’, more advanced technology is needed. Sterilization is like a cudgel when what is needed is a knife. In the not-too-distant future it may be possible to reliably predict [3] one’s intelligence based on genomic markers, and hence embryos that have genes conducive to high or average IQ could be selected. Instead of only an IQ score, individuals would also have a ‘biological IQ score’ based on a set of genomic markers that correlate highly with IQ on an administered IQ test, and also follows a normal distribution. Similarly, fetuses with genes that predispose to low IQ (but also other genetic abnormalities that significantly impair life) could be aborted, and such screening could be made mandatory. People who adhere to the program would receive remittances, as a financial incentive to comply. This bypasses the problem of sterilization, which some perceive as coercive and a violation of one’s ‘individual rights’.

[1] However, not that much considering welfare is only 10% of the federal budget:

The middle class also consumes a lot of tax-payer-funded services–healthcare and education–primarily. The same for social security and pensions. In terms of reducing the federal deficit and cutting spending, HBD-based policy may be insufficient.

Related: Bryan Caplan’s “IQ With Conscience”

[2] Is the World Becoming Smarter of Dumber?

[3] Although environment plays some role in IQ, according to Wiki, “…the heritability of IQ for adults is between 58% and 77%,[5] (with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%[6] and 86%[7]) genome-wide association studies have so far identified only 20%-50% of the genetic variation that contributes to heritability.[8] IQ also goes from being weakly correlated with genetics, for children, to being strongly correlated with genetics for late teens and adults. The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18–20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[9] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[10] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[11][12]” This suggests that individuals are born with an innate ‘IQ ceiling’ (one’s biological IQ) that is realized/actualized as an adult. A negligent upbringing may prevent one from attaining this ceiling and may even result in sub-par scores as a child, but attaining one’s ceiling may still be possible as an adult.