In the journal Intelligence Gerhard Meisenberg contributes another analysis showing that IQ and fertility are negatively correlated. Here's the abstract:
Although a negative relationship between fertility and education has been described consistently in most countries of the world, less is known about the relationship between intelligence and reproductive outcomes. Also the paths through which intelligence influences reproductive outcomes are uncertain. The present study uses the NLSY79 to analyze the relationship of intelligence measured in 1980 with the number of children reported in 2004, when the respondents were between 39 and 47 years old. Intelligence is negatively related to the number of children, with partial correlations (age controlled) of −.156, −.069, −.235 and −.028 for White females, White males, Black females and Black males, respectively. This effect is related mainly to the g-factor. It is mediated in part by education and income, and to a lesser extent by the more “liberal” gender attitudes of more intelligent people. In the absence of migration and with constant environment, genetic selection would reduce the average IQ of the US population by about .8 points per generation.
All these patterns have been found before, including the more negative correlation among black females. Here are the results in graph form.
As you can see, for white women the most fertile range is 70-80, well below the black average of 85. The second best place to be, from the perspective of a white woman's genes, is legally retarded!
The smartest black females suffer from there being so few good bruthas out there. While intelligent black males can either dip into the general population of the community or go white to find a partner, these options tend not to be available for black females who are not attractive to educated whites and don't usually want typical black men.
0.8 points doesn't seem like a lot, but it means 11.7% fewer people with IQs higher than 130. In a century there will be a drop of 2.9 points and 37.7% fewer gifted individuals. Considering that whites and Asians have been genetically separated for tens of thousands of years and only differ by about five points, a change of three within a hundred years should horrify us. Just imagine, if the "natural" IQ difference between whites and Hispanics is five points, our grandchildren could live to see one of the current gene-based racial gaps all but disappear within their lifetimes (assuming Hispanics don't also suffer dysgenics, etc). No Child Left Behind will finally be a success!
And don't count on the Flynn Effect to bail us out, as it's all but ended in the developed world. Improved environment has done what it could for us and all future genetic deterioration will be noticeable. Also, as Meisenberg explains, the 0.8 point drop is assuming that the nurture component stays the same, which it won't because a genetically lower IQ population will create a less stimulating environment.
...if the cognitive returns on environmental improvements are indeed diminishing in the most advanced societies, small genetically caused declines can entail far larger declines of phenotypic intelligence than predicted by genetic selection alone. This is because a less intelligent population is less able to maintain near-optimal environments, thereby reducing its intelligence even more. For example, small reductions in the average intelligence of educational administrators will result in an increased probability that educational reforms will reduce rather than enhance students' intelligence, and thereby lead to even lower intelligence in the next generation of educational administrators and even greater deterioration of the educational system.
On the other hand, a lower societal IQ may cause Americans to reject socialism, thereby making the economy better than it otherwise would've been and increasing resources. Early twentieth century Russia could've certainly done better with fewer high IQ Jews and Georgians.
An interesting observation is that when you look at fertility of whites with IQs of >100 the rules don't apply. The Caucasian birthrate is almost exactly the same whether one is at 100 or 130. Perhaps 100 is the bare minimum required to use contraception consistently and effectively.
So what is to be done? Those who have taken to the sport of burning strawmen say "Leave things as they are or Nazism. Nothing in between!" Obviously there are other options. What would happen, for example, if colleges drilled the educated on the heritability and importance of IQ to one tenth the degree they preached feminism and environmentalism? Even if childbearing and rearing made women less happy on a daily basis than working 9-5, and I truly doubt it, intelligent people tend to look for higher reasons to live. That's why they endure physical discomfort to go to Africa with the peace corps or volunteer to teach in an inner-city neighborhood. Some actual literacy in the human sciences would teach those with high IQs and a sense of social consciousness that the most important thing they could leave behind is their genetic makeup. If this was widely understood, large families (made up of one's own biological children!) for women who have already demonstrated intellectual ability by say graduating from a top university would become a status symbol the way adopting a black baby is today. There's some evidence that societies which revere families and traditional values have more eugenic fertility than those where acceptance of a sterile egalitarian humanism is a main marker of status. In early twentieth century China the wealthier and literate tended to have more children and Richard Lynn has found Muslim Indonesia to have the most eugenic fertility of any contemporary nation studied.
As for the other end of the spectrum, there doesn't seem to be a way to deal with low IQ breeding that doesn't include coercion. Perhaps charities could be formed which paid those in the 70-85 range to be sterilized, but what to do with those below 70 who legally can't even give consent and have a higher birthrate than the general population? In the same way we lock up criminals and the mentally ill in the interests of society at large, one could argue that we could on the exact same principle sterilize those who are bound to harm future generations through giving birth. If we say we don't want government making these decisions, then we have to ask why we allow government to institutionalize crazy people who haven't been convicted of a crime, a power that is just as open to abuse.