only idiots reproduce

File: 1477468332117s.jpg (4KB, 122x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 122x125px

>>36371222

Its because the more industrialized a country is, the lower the birth rates.

Go back to England before the industrial revolution and look at how many kids are being born and die before reaching adulthood

Same thing is happening in Africa. Until they industrialize, they birth rate will always be high to combat the risk of loosing kids before adult hood.

>>36371496
You can speculate all you want about the causes. It remains a fact that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and fertility.

File: iq by country.png (28KB, 1357x800px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1357x800px

iq map

File: 1482014190391.jpg (13KB, 242x283px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 242x283px

>>36371536
>>36371588

That doesn't change that fact that the countries have a high fertility. Since they have a high mortality at birth.

Until they become industrialized, their fertility rate and death rate would stay similarly close, like England.

Also its not speculation if it happened with all industrialized countries and will continue to happen to upcoming ones.

Its a proven study.

>>36371496
>>36371720
Correct. /thread
>>36371536
Wrong -1 points

>>36371222
>only retards have children
Um yea haven't you seen that documentary idiocracy?

>>36371720
It is speculation because you can't know for sure whether nonindustrialized countries will be industrialized just because currently industrialized countries used to be nonindustrialized. What you can do however is measure a correlation between average iq of countries and average fertility rate, and that correlation is inverse.

>intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence

File: 1485724972239.png (266KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 600x600px

>>36371870

Its not speculation because non-industrialized countries will be industrialized due to their GDP growth. There will always be more industrialized countries as the decades pass.

But you cant do that correlation because their birthrates are higher due to the state of such country.

Just because something correlates, does not mean it causes it.

>>36371536
This is not speculation. This is a a very well known geographic event called demographics transition. It's literally history 101 material.
You seem to be the one relying on speculations and falsehood to come up with your inductive conclusions based on nothing but fallacies. Have you got any evidence to support your claim? Have you ever studied a single bit of history or geography? Or is /pol/ your main source of information?

>>36372009
>Its not speculation because non-industrialized countries will be industrialized due to their GDP growth. There will always be more industrialized countries as the decades pass.
Unless you can time travel it is speculation.

>But you cant do that correlation because their birthrates are higher due to the state of such country.
A correlation is a correlation. You're the one dragging CAUSE into it, not me. The correlation is proven.

>Just because something correlates, does not mean it causes it.
Did anyone say it did? They only one who dragged cause into this was you.

File: ee653b9cf74f219bf007cf8afb471adb092cd3f20677c53ca41d707bbbcb6b31_1-1-1.jpg (91KB, 740x679px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 740x679px

>>36371222
Good Goy

This is an original shill

Iran confirmed for white. Not even islam can compete with the OAG (original aryan genes)

>Abstract

>Many studies have found a small to moderate negative correlation between IQ and fertility rates. However, these studies have been limited to the United States and some European countries. The present study was a between-nation study using national IQ scores and national fertility rates. There were strong negative correlations found between national IQ and three national indicators of fertility.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289607000244

>>36372148
Exactly. Correlation doesn't mean shit, it's just speculation, and while you might say that his argument is speculation it doesn't change the fact that yours is too.

>>36372479
>Correlation doesn't mean shit, it's just speculation
no, the correlation is not speculation, it's proven.

File: IMG_3886.jpg (25KB, 262x263px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 262x263px

>>36371588
>China
>greater than 105
sure... that's what their communist government wants everyone to think

File: 1491682889779.jpg (58KB, 738x550px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 738x550px

>>36372519
Correlation is not causation. If it's not causation then it isn't proven.

>>36372623
>Correlation is not causation
correct, and I didn't say it is

>If it's not causation then it isn't proven.
Proven what? A correlation can be proven to exist.

>>36371222
that is the conundrum. Even in america its the stupid people that are popping out kids left and right and people like bill gates have one or none

Making the gene pool stupider and stupider