Saturday, October 28, 2006

White babies quite the commodity

If you know a pregnant white girl contemplating an abortion and she wants your opinion on what she should do, make her aware of the affluence her child will likely enjoy if she gives it up for adoption:
When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practice that was outlawed in America nearly 150 years ago — the buying and selling of human beings.
Hispanic babies cost a middling $10,000. A couple that can afford to shell out what the average American makes in a year to adopt a child is probably going to provide a healthy and stimulating environment for that child. The problem with contemporary birthing trends in the US is that the younger the woman, the healthier the child tends to be (Down's syndrome, miscarriage, and other misfortunes are all correlated with the increasing age of the mother--and in the case of autism, the father as well). A baby birthed to a healthy, drug-free young woman is almost guaranteed to be in great health. Yet the older the woman, the more likely the child is to enjoy financial stability and be free from material concerns, enjoy access to good schools, etc (as women with the foresight to forgo children or who do so due to extended academic careers tend to be smarter and make more money).

If the girl is healthy, sharp, and generally stable in spite of a one-time strumpet-esque screwup, her baby has a chance at the best of both worlds. It'll probably be healthy, sharp, and be living in an affluent household with parents that definitely want it. You'll be advocating something morally more palatable than an abortion while buoying a US fertility rate that sits tenuously on the replenishment cusp.

As an interesting aside, the article linked above has a quote that illustrates the astuteness of Steve Sailer readers who offered a list of conceptual tools for understanding how the world works and the inability of most media types to employ said tools. Responding to criticism that healthy white mothers giving a child up fetch adoption agencies the highest price, we get:
"The thing that is scary to me is that children aren't perfect," she said. "People who are willing to pay high fees for healthy kids don't always get perfect children. If you pay $50,000, it doesn't mean that child is going to be healthy, gorgeous and smart."
Of course, compared to opting to adopt the child of a crack-addicted black mother the likelihood is much greater that you will. But since neither option A or B is perfect, option A and B must be essentially the same. Irrationality, our experts claim that rational moves by prospective adopters are irrational.


Unlisted said...

They don't mention how much biracial babies are. Bet they fetch about as much as Latino babies do

Anonymous said...

Americans have been adopting Japanese, Chinese, and Korean babies for over 60 years now. Americans would adopt babies from any country and of any race. Why?

Having a family with children obviously means something to americans. If they'll spend many thousands of dollars just for the chance to adopt a child, and many more thousands for the actual adoption, you know children are important to americans.

Angry Al said...

Crush41, thank you for your thoughtful response to my prior comment about the anti-meritocratic and dysgenic policies so deeply rooted in the USA, and my apologies for taking so long to respond-- I have been extremely busy trying to make a living these days.

Just a couple responses-- you had noted that the US White birthrate is higher than in most European countries, citing the TFR of 1.8. Unfortunately, this is based on old data from roughly 1996 or so. I used to do yeoman's work part-time in Washington before permanently relocating out West, and so had lots of access to the Statistical Abstracts there (great way to figure out the labyrinthine insanity of government contracting rules). In fact the US White birth rate as of 2005 is more in the range of 1.6-1.7, compared to the Black birth rate of about 2.1-2.2, and the Latino birthrate of close to 3 (much more than that for Mexican-Americans).

Now, a TFR of 1.6-1.7 is still higher than most of Europe, but with some extremely somber caveats:

1. The *only* reason this number hasn't dropped faster, is that the US has long had abundant and relatively cheap land compared to Europe, which is one of the strongest correlating factors with higher fertility rates. This advantage has been so strong that until recently, it's been able to outweigh the more profoundly dysgenic aspects of US culture such as vigorous affirmative action and anti-productivity marriage, divorce and taxation laws, which are not found in most Western countries to anywhere near the same extent. However as I wrote in my last post, this advantage has all but disappeared as US population hits 300,000,000-- land is no longer cheap and crowding is far more severe than before.

2. In fact, if you peer behind the numbers (the Statistcal Abstracts are broken down by state, region and urban concentration in the tabulations), the US White birth rate in urban regions, especially in the Blue States (but increasingly even in more and more crowded Midwestern Red State cities), is abysmally low-- around 1.2-1.3. Among White urban professionals (and educated professionals in general) in the US, fertility is below 1 in most metro areas. Out in California, Whites are virtually disappearing as a class with professionals the hardest hit. The highest White birth rates now tend to be in the most rural, least-educated regions of the USA where views like opposition to stem cell research or evolution are on the rise, and even there the TFR's have dropped below replacement. It's not in any way true that "children are more important to Americans" than to other Western countries-- this sort of international adoption, or adoption in general, is minuscule in the US (as it is elsewhere in the Western world).

In contrast, childless couples and singles are the fastest-growing segment of the US population. Among women with college degrees in the US, now 40-50% have no children, and among those with advanced degrees and executive experience, the numbers are shocking, close to 70%. Today, among similarly educated US men, the numbers are better but still, close to 1/4 stay childless. Among my old Ivy League pals who *have* stayed in the USA, close to half plan on not having any children (obviously much more of the women than men graduates). Part of this may be cultural, but honestly, a number of them in theory would *like* to have kids, but the crushing costs of living (housing and otherwise) in urban centers where we tend to congregate, plus the horrific costs we bear due to affirmative action and the other dysgenic policies that I mentioned, make it almost impossible to support a family with kids in practice.

For my own part, my wife and I, who both hail from a solidly Mormon religious background-- about as pro-Natalist as it gets in the USA these days for a White subcultural group-- originally planned to have 3 or 4 kids when we married. We've decided to stop at 2, and even then we're just barely scraping by these days despite the fact that BOTH OF US have advanced degrees from top universities and lots of extended family support. The frustration of being a contractor and dealing with the mountain of nonsensical government regulations, and ESPECIALLY with the affirmative action dictates, is enough to drive any sensible person almost crazy. I'd almost go as far as to say that affirmative action is a policy deliberately designed to crush US White fertility and raise it for competing groups, a sort of subtle sneaking form of ethnic demographic warfare. In part because of the lost income and lost opportunity from AA, and in part due to the cost-of-living in urban regions (where a person of my technical background really has to settle), coupled with further costs due to crime, pollution and traffic congestion, makes even 2 kids for us quite a stretch. Many of my Mormon friends are even stopping at 1, unthinkable just a decade ago. And it's not like "moving off the grid" to supposedly less costly Midwestern or exurban regions provides much relief-- the cost of land and the crowding in those regions has also skyrocketed, and most of us can't afford more than 1 or 2 kids, if even that.

IOW, in the USA today we have the miserable choice of two anti-meritocracies. One is an urban, regional, mostly Blue- but also Red-State anti-meritocracy in cities and their metropolitan areas where affirmative action crushes and eviscerates virtually every institution in the public or private sector, where marriage/divorce/tax laws are profoundly anti-dysgenic, and where the Caucasian birth rate especially among professionals is dangerously low.

OTOH we could choose a second anti-meritocracy in less urban and less dense regions mostly in the Red States where White fertility is a bit higher (though still below replacement) and where idiocy like opposition to scientific research and evolution, and a burning desire to start World War III in the Middle East in response to some moronic misreading of Biblical text, are all the rage. (The hatred that we've encountered as Mormons in many of the Red States has naturally soured me and my friends on them to an extent, but even aside from this, any self-respecting educated professional would be shocked at the level of anti-intellectualism, anti-meritocracy, and mad religious rigidity that predominates in many of the Red States-- without even gaining much in the way of a fertility boost in the process!)

Over a dozen of my smartest friends and acquaintances have seen how awful this anti-meritocratic non-choice is, which is why they have emigrated to a handful of carefully chosen European or East Asian countries.

As for the policies in different Euro countries, again I don't want to repeat what I wrote in the prior post but it definitely does vary from place to place there, though the *overall* direction of the EU is in favor of strict restrictions on Muslim immigration and encouragement of meritocratic immigration for professionals from Eastern Europe and Russia, Australia, South Africa, South America and North America, as well as from China, South Asia and Korea to a lesser extent.

Even more importantly IMHO, is that most of Europe (with the exception of Britain) has nothing in the guise of the ridiculously destructive affirmative action and marriage/divorce policies that afflict the USA and Canada. Even France has categorically rejected AA.

As for a country-by-country breakdown, again, the smaller Central European countries in Europe are about the closest in the world you'll find (other than maybe Japan, South Korea or China, which I know less about) to strict meritocracies. As I said, Switzerland and Austria see themselves as the cultural heirs of genius in the personages of great achievers such as Haydn, Mozart, the Strausses, Schroedinger, Pauli, the Bernoullis, Mendel, Landsteiner, Lorenz, Doppler and many others. They are among the great bulwarks of Western civilization and are driven to stay that way, plus they were Europe's most heroic warriors in defending the entire Continent from the Turks in prior invasions. So, Austria and Switzerland will remain as bellwethers of the greatest aspects of Western civilization.

Germany and Denmark have followed in the footsteps of the Austrian and Swiss models, with a highly meritocratic immigration policy coupled with deportation capabilities against troublemakers. Along with Austria and Switzerland, not only have they refused to adopt idiotic affirmative action policies-- they've also introduced openly pro-Natalist policies for their professional and educated classes in the past couple years.

Yes, their birth rate has fallen too recently, but far too much is made of this. These countries have had much sharper TFR drops in the past, but at the same time, they've maintained their fundamentally ethnic and high-culture character, such that things self-correct within a couple generations. Countries throughout the world these days are going to hit a population max sometime-- we can't continue to grow forever, we have to stabilize at some point or the planet is choked off. The difference is that some Western countries are busy replacing their White professional class with far less educated, anti-meritocratic others (the US, Canada, Britain and Australia), while other Western countries (Austria, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and some others) have a temporary fertility drop but maintain their ethnic character and stabilize after 1-2 generations.

Thus, Germany and Denmark, too, are becoming Western bulwarks. Germany isn't surprising-- the home of Brahms, Bach, Beethoven, Wohler, Goethe, Schiller, Durer, Alzheimer, Schweitzer, and the ancestors of German-Americans such as Boeing, Rockefeller, Westinghouse and the founders of the computer age, it's obviously too meritocratic a place to buy into the stupidity of the US-based anti-meritocracy ethos for long. Germany also has a little tech boom of its own dispersed around Krefeld, Stuttgart, Dortmund, Berlin and Leipzig Similar for Denmark, with lots of need for trained US tech workers who know some German, and w/o the stupidity of outsourcing which cuts costs in return for mediocre quality.

Italy's an interesting case, you knock them and I used to as well until I talked to my two old buddies-- brilliant, both of them-- who are now resident there. Turns out that Italy also has a tech corridor in the northern region of the country and, again, Italy is blessedly free of the affirmative action and dysgenic marriage/divorce madness that's killing the USA.

But as far as immigration policy, it's subtler than most Americans grasp. Yes, Italy did have a recent amnesty, but over 80% of the amnestied were Greco-Latin coethnics from Romania, South America (Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, which have huge ethnic Italian populations) and Greece, as well as large numbers of Bulgarians, Poles, Czechs and other Eastern Europeans. A large number of these in fact are professionals who had trouble getting Italian visas.

The problem in the US is that we hear "amnesty" and we think of it in context of the mess we have in this country, when amnesty in Italy (the most recent one at least) means something completely and fundamentally different. Same thing for Spain, where the recent amnesty was done chiefly for the benefit of the enormous Romanian, Portuguese, British, Greek and Chilean populations resident in Spain, a large fraction of whom are professionals. (Moreover in the Alpine region of northern Italy where one of my friends sojourns, German is the chief language, and some of the people facilitated by the recent amnesty were eastern European Germans-- the "Aussiedler" from Russia, mostly-- who had settled there, started up companies but were having trouble advancing them due to work permit issues.)

So in fact, both Italy and Spain also have generally pro-meritocratic immigration policies with an absence of the wreckage caused by affirmative action and United States styled dysgenic marriage/divorce laws, and furthermore, both countries-- after having provided an amnesty to help mostly European professionals resident therein-- have now themselves clamped down on their immigration policies as well, if not to the extent of e.g. Germany and Denmark yet.

Like I was hinting before, France is the wild card here, but it too has moved in the direction of Austria/Switzerland/Germany/Denmark and away from the US model.

In this respect, I was drawn to a very astute comment that you made in a prior post, where you pointed out that the attempt to Islamicize Europe (Continental Europe at least) has failed due to the extremist actions of the Muslim immigrants. The effects haven't been the same for the different events. The London and Madrid bombings, and even the reactions to the Danish cartoons-- horrid as they were-- were justified in many circles as military and political responses to the invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and Denmark, and maybe there's even a grain of truth in that at least as far as the motivation for them goes.

But the assassination of Theo van Gogh, and especially the Paris riots, have no justification whatsoever. France and the Netherlands (the Dutch for over 2 years) aren't involved in Iraq and have if anything been largely supportive of the movement against the US-led war there. The riots in France were triggered by an event in which the two youths were electrocuted by accident and killed due to their own blunders and criminal activity, and by far the most damage in Paris and elsewhere in France has been perpetrated against the Muslim community itself by unruly young Muslim North Africans, in the banlieues, where most of the automobile and property damage has occurred.

Paradoxically, these Paris riots may be the chief factor that's saved France and Europe as a whole from becoming Eurabia. The riots and the vandalism in France so enraged French moderates and ordinary people that the warnings of Jean Marie Le Pen and the French nationalists could no longer be ignored, and thus the cynical mainstream thumb-in-the-wind politicians like Nicholas Sarkozy were compelled to adopt the National Front platform and introduce one of Europe's toughest immigration laws, which not only restricts inflows but allows for and encourages swift deportations of North African and Arab criminals and terrorist sympathizers. The more recent riots in France are ironically a benefit to the country, since they enable the authorities to identify the troublemakers and swiftly deport them. In fact, France has now become the European hub of deportation-- tens of thousands of Arabs/North Africans have already been kicked out and close to a quarter million are scheduled to be evicted from France by late 2007 (most not connected to the riots per se, but a good number indeed with such connections).

The Netherlands has moved in a similar direction as a reaction to the outrage of the Theo van Gogh murder. Thus, both France and the Netherlands have benefited from the crises created by Muslim criminals going too far.

This brings up a crucial point, and it's that sometimes, the best thing that can happen to a country is to experience a crisis that forces a necessary action. As you yourself noted, it's the subtle changes that insidiously creep up on you, that are the most deadly to a nation, since it's too late to confront them when a crisis truly does arrive-- the old frog in the slowly boiling pot of water analogy.

That's why I find it useless to promote any minor Bandaids to US immigration policy (such as providing a few more visas to professionals), since this does nothing to cure the underlying anti-meritocratic rot that's destroying the US, Canada and Britain. If anything, such temporary "helpful" measures make the problem worse by helping to conceal the underlying disaster, and by enabling unscrupulous politicians and business leaders to continue a little while longer without having to face the consequences of the anti-meritocratic disasters like affirmative action. It's like treating a few superficial symptoms while allowing the underlying disease to continue to run rampant.

I say, let the crisis come so that we're forced to confront the anti-meritocracy we've become at its root levels, otherwise affirmative action and our dysgenic policies will slowly and insidiously bring us to ruin from within. I have a strong suspicion that only a really nasty brain drain, a mass emigration of US professionals to e.g. the European Continent and East Asia, may shock policymakers into action, otherwise they'll continue to shy away from making the needed reforms and our country will slowly crumble from within.

As a final note here, one of my buddies pointed out to me that the countries with the worst, most idiotic and anti-meritocratic policies tend to be the Anglophone countries, and he showed me some links to a pretty fascinating meme these days, tying these disastrous policies to the Anglosphere countries' self-perception as an empire. I think there may be some truth to that. Imperialism is horrifically corrosive to meritocracy since it brushes aside critical factors for a society's success, like culture and ethnic cohesion, in favor of a crude, short-term obsessed economist's fantasy ideology. The Anglosphere's fixation on imperialism, globalism and neoliberalism is truly ruining us from within.

If I myself join my old friends and learn some Italian, French or German prior to relocating to some tech hub around Milan or Stuttgart, maybe I'll be able to comment like an expat outsider on the mess that the US has become. For now, I'm one of the grunts who's mired within it, watching powerlessly as my once-great country squanders its talent and its human capital away with its foolish policies.

Angry Al said...

Also, Crush, I'm sorry to add another despondent note here, but the US prison system has done virtually nothing to decrease childbearing among the most violent segment of our population. The vast majority of crimes, even serious ones, don't result in lifetime incarceration, and thus even violent criminals have plenty of opportunities to sire children during their furloughs and paroles as well as, of course, before any long-term jail sentences (a disproportionate number of fathers of kids born to teen mothers are in jail while their kids grow up). Even criminals with very long sentences frequently have conjugal visits.

Thus, US incarceration does nothing to weed out dysgenic traits and, in fact, the fertility rates among such long-term criminals is much higher than the average. The system is far too disjointed, scattershot and varied from state to state, with so many opportunities to emerge from behind the walls, to have any such effect.

crush41 said...


Can't disagree. Our inane immigration policies are making affordable family formation increasingly difficult, pushing up the costs of homes and the lives lived in them in exchange for a criminally-prone, disproportionately diseased, low IQ underclass.

I'm not as optimistic on Europe as you though. Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are among the oldest countries in the world--a woman of median age in these nations can scarcely produce a child if she wanted to. They've not been able to figure out how to create a sustainable contemporary civilization based on merit, and they're running out of time to do so (nor have the East Asian tigers).

Your take on the imperial aspirations of Anglo nations and the ecumenical policies borne out of this is interesting. In my experience, ethnic Germans are frustratingly supportive of open borders (as are the Irish) relative to those of English descent. That's purely anecdotal, though, and the meme is probably what's important.

Regarding prisons: At any given time, almost 5% of black men are in prison. A half percent of the worst white men are behind bars. They'd be breeding even more if they weren't locked up. C'mon, I'm trying to discover some silver lining!

Angry Al said...

Crush, like I mentioned, I'm not perturbed by the aging of Germany and other Euro nations (Austria and Switzerland are actually more moderate on this front, interestingly enough) because it's to be expected, and it's temporary. I've long had a side interest in studies of demography, and contrary to what many believe, this is harldy the first time such a thing has occurred-- Western and other nations have had such demographic "hiccups" and plummeting birth rates before, for a variety for reasons. The problem lasts, perhaps, for a generation or two, then self-corrects as values inevitably change and pro-Natalist cultural beliefs and policies take hold. This is a sort of natural corrective, but for the first time in history, many Western nations such as the US, UK and Canada-- rather than tolerating this temporary drop and resurgence in a future generation-- are "plugging" the shortfall with massive 3rd world immigration, which exacerbates the very crowding and land scarcity that minimize the White birth rate in the first place. The US and Canada in particular, and now Britain, aggravate it even worse with these horrifically dysgenic and damaging affirmative action policies.

Germany's just going through a similar demographic adjustment phase as has happened many times before. They've hit a high population density while refusing to invite hordes of Third World immigrants into their borders, while at the same time, increased urbanization and commercial activity pushes up land prices for a while. Germany is now limiting immigration to well-educated professionals, chiefly among other Western nations.

Inevitably, this causes Germany's population to age and shrink somewhat for a generation. This causes a bit of stress but really isn't a significant issue overall, unless Germany were to follow the lead of the US and UK and essentially replace its White population with a Third World one, which Germany refuses to do. So Germany accepts the temporary population drop-off for a couple decades as economic circumstances adjust, maintaining the character of its civilization, as pro-Natalist cultural traits reemerge, as they've done before. Pro-Natalism is already back in vogue, and not only are the public and private sectors providing all kinds of incentives to Germans with children, but the general zeitgeist is increasingly frowning on childless couples. I noticed, when I was there, that the most popular and respected celebrities (including the women regarded as most beautiful and praised) were those with children, or clearly planning to have them. Again, this is the natural corrective at work.

Just to reemphasize, the problem with the West isn't a falling birth rate per se, it's the coupling of a falling birth rate with mass Third World immigration that replaces the original population. World population has to stabilize in the midst of our limited resources, both for the sake of human civilization and the natural world. The key for Western countries is to stabilize this population while retaining their ethnic character, which inevitably involves some fluctuation across generations. Germany is doing this successfully, with the country's leaders not following the idiotic nostrums of US "diversity" pushers and allowing the recent population drop to self-correct gradually.

The US, UK and Canada, by contrast, are responding by committing suicide. Anglosphere imperialism only drives the knife in further, breaking down our ethnic character at home while involving us in disastrous defeats in foreign wars abroad. Meanwhile, the almost unparalleled stupidity of affirmative action and our marriage/divorce laws and tax structures-- dysgenic, anti-Natalist for professionals, and just about unique in the Western world-- basically dooms us to ruin, with no prospect of saving ourselves except through a catastrophic crisis. Again, most likely, it will take a mass exodus of US professionals to Continental Europe, East Asia and perhaps a few places in South America for us to wake up to this disastrous folly.

crush41 said...


Where would you recommend reading up on previous birth dearths and subsequent pick-ups in fertility? I'm pretty ignorant of the trends pre-WWII.

Anonymous said...

A healthy, sharp woman who gave birth to baby out of wedlock and gave it up for adoption would ruin her reputation and her schooling/career. What healthy sharp man would want to marry such a woman? And her career/schooling would get disrupted.

Audacious Epigone said...


One doesn't have to tell the whole world about the adoption. Unless it's a HS sweetheart or something, the Mr. Right won't even be known yet.