Immigration and Fertility by Nation As birthrates drop in developed nations, mass immigration reshapes demographics, raising concerns about cultural integration, intelligence decline, and the long-term stability of advanced economies. By Edward Ring
https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/12/immigration-and-fertility-by-nation/
“But one thing is certain: the human population is rapidly declining in every developed nation on earth. How we adapt to that, and who we invite into our nations, should involve a discussion that includes all variables.”
When a nation’s population grows, it’s easier for that nation to experience economic growth. This is the conventional economic wisdom that has been unchallenged for centuries. And there was little reason to challenge this axiom, because throughout human history, the global population trend has been one of perpetual increase. But as birthrates are crashing in wealthier nations, without exception, it may be time to reexamine what constitutes healthy economic growth and how it may be achieved without increasing population.
The way Western nations have chosen to respond to crashing birthrates is to rely on mass immigration. Tens of millions of people are being encouraged to migrate from poor nations where fertility remains high into rich nations with low fertility. This gives rise to challenges that remain unresolved and indeed may worsen as people arrive by the millions from cultures with dramatically different values and beliefs than the host culture.
Let’s assume for a moment that these cultural clashes can be resolved. That’s making a huge leap of faith, but let’s envision a world where, as the developed nations saw their indigenous population diminish, they were steadily replaced by immigrants from high-fertility nations. This is not mere speculation. Based on current trends, within a generation, indigenous populations in developed nations will become minorities, outnumbered by immigrants.
So notwithstanding how these nations would maintain social stability in the face of replacement levels of immigration, and notwithstanding how the indigenous cultures would merge with the immigrant cultures into something unrecognizable by any historical comparisons, what else can we surmise might characterize these new and blended populations?
One of the most salient determinants of individual success is an individual’s general intelligence, and what’s true for individuals is also true for nations. The data on average IQ by nation is available online, and when checking multiple sources here, here, and here, the overall figures were remarkably consistent. What is also true, although the scatter plot does reveal some outliers, is that in the world today, the higher the national average IQ, the lower the fertility. The converse is also true.
Discussing average intellect by groups, certainly including nations, is somewhat of a forbidden topic. For example, Wikipedia, a reliably politically correct resource, does not even offer the data but does feature a lengthy discussion of why the data is controversial and potentially misleading. Anyone truly interested in learning more about IQ and nations is encouraged to read Wikipedia’s take on the subject, but the implications of a blended national population becoming significantly less intelligent are too profound to leave it at that.
What if IQ is predominantly heritable? What if the much-vaunted “Flynn Effect,” which claims human IQ has been increasing steadily over time, only goes so far? Will the Flynn Effect raise the collective IQ of a population from 80 to 100, or from 60 to 80? And what are the consequences if the Flynn Effect doesn’t deliver the results we’re hoping for?
Data on IQ for various occupations indicates that civil and mechanical engineers, the people who keep civilization running, on average have an IQ of 130. In America, where the average IQ is 100, only 2 percent of the population has an IQ that high. But since the Bell Curve of intelligence has a consistent, symmetrical shape even if the peak—representing the average—is in a different place, if a nation’s average IQ is 80, then only 2 percent of that population have an IQ of 110, and almost nobody would have an IQ above 130.
Whenever writing about IQ, we have to be careful not to offend anyone. But imagine a nation where the IQ has dropped by 10 points because the composition of its population has been significantly altered. Generally speaking, higher intelligence enables an individual to process unfamiliar information and problem solve faster and more accurately. Do we want to significantly degrade our collective ability to manage our infrastructure, from air traffic to pipelines and power plants?
The promise of artificial intelligence and neurolinks may be problematic. I’m reminded of a scene in the 1973 movie Paper Chase, where a law professor confronts a student who gave a nonsensical answer to a question he’d asked. The student protested, saying he had a photographic memory. The professor’s reply was instructive. He said a photographic memory is of almost no use unless you have the brainpower to process all that information you’re memorizing so effectively.
This anecdote underscores the fallacy of mechanical augmentation of intellect. The reality of AI and neurolinks may be completely the opposite of what they promise. That is, we may need to be more intelligent and better educated if we are to avoid being steered in whatever direction our embedded programs decide to take us.
Gene editing for intelligence is another pathway towards higher average cognition. It’s a little early to know how that’s going to work, apart from the fact that we can count on every aspect of genetic enhancement to be maximized by nations that lack the scruples to proceed with caution.
Who knows, maybe the Flynn Effect will bail us out. But one thing is certain: the human population is rapidly declining in every developed nation on earth. How we adapt to that, and who we invite into our nations, should involve a discussion that includes all variables.
Comments are closed.
