Merkel's immigration policy a net positive for childbearing

Chided at home for her immigration policy, Merkel gets support from a scientific study. First some facts.

"With a value of 1.50 in 2015, however, it is still far from the replacement level fertility of 2.1 children per woman."

Hang on, here comes good news for Merkel's Germany courtesy Martin Fieder and Susanne Huber and their study 'Evolution and Human Reproduction'. The replacement level fertility of 2.1 children per woman may be met in coming years.

According to that study,

... Those studies based on representative data sets from modern societies clearly demonstrate that particularly personal income is positively associated with the number of children in men but not in women, where the association is mostly neutral or even negative (Fieder et al., 2005; Hopcroft, 2006, 2015; Weeden, Abrams, Green, & Sabini, 2006; Nettle & Pollet, 2008; Fieder, Huber, & Bookstein, 2011; Barthold, Myrskylä, & Jones, 2012; Fieder & Huber, 2012). The position in a social hierarchy is also positively associated with offspring number in men but not women (Fieder et al., 2005; Fieder & Huber, 2012).

IOW, men with higher income tend to have more children. Not so women.

In most cases, this positive relationship between socioeconomic status indicators and offspring number was explained by the higher chance of low-status men to remain unmated and, thus, childless.

So poor men have difficulties finding a mate and thus remain out of the "child production" cycle. Now here comes the kicker.

In society subsets, however, not only does the risk of childlessness increase among men of low income but also the number of children increases in those who reproduce at all (Fieder et al., 2005).

Though poor males are left behind, those who do find a spouse fornicate like rabbits. One can not help but give Merkel credit for this ingenuity. After all, she is a scientist herself.

This may be particularly important in societies at risk of disintegration into subsamples—for instance, in the case of high immigration. Although income provides a rather “universal status indicator” (Fieder, Huber, & Bookstein, 2011), in immigrants, some status indicators could have a different meaning because migrants may partially use the partially deviating status system of their home society.

It may not be disintegration that immigrants are facing in Germany, but the country does not have a good track record in integrating foreigners. The status indicator of their home society is often the number of children for they provide social security in old age. There you go, Germany.

Let's turn to religion and the fact that the new German Interior Heimat Minister Seehofer from the deep woods of Bavaria stated in his first speech that 'Islam is not a part of Germany'. I am not sure he reflected that properly, but then again, he hails from the province of Bavaria where clocks tick differently. He might break out a cold sweat when reading:

A particularly high degree of homogamy has been found for religion (Fieder & Huber, 2016), as well as education (Huber & Fieder, 2011). An analysis of census data from IPUMS International (https://international.ipums.org/international) reveals a worldwide mean in religious homogamy of 94.82%. The highest prevalence of religious homogamy is found in the Muslim world (usually >99%), in which the Quran ensures the rate of high homogamy (Quran, 2:221, 5:5, 60:10), ...

He may even be more shocked to hear about the prospects.

Marriage stability and satisfaction may in turn affect fertility decisions. Indeed, religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity (Krishnan, 1993; Fieder & Huber, 2016).

He may even be close to a heart attack when the study found "a cultural trait may represent an expanded “kinship system” that may have evolved during the aggregation to larger social units". The prospect of a religion-based dichotomy is not particularly enticing for staid, traditional Germans. The AfD says hello.

The clear pro-fertile effect of religious (Fieder & Huber, 2016) and, to a lesser extent, educational homogamy (Huber & Fieder, 2011, 2016) indicates that there may also be evolutionary reasons for the high prevalence of homogamous mating. From an evolutionary standpoint, marriage along a cultural trait may represent an expanded “kinship system” that may have evolved during the aggregation to larger social units. In the case of religious homogamy, for instance, despite the fact that a certain proportion of religious homogamous marriages can be expected among kin, individuals may recognize other individuals of the same religion “as somehow closer,” sharing at least some essential values. A comparable mechanism may also hold true for educational homogamy, albeit educational homogamy represents a much younger “mating system.”

Dichotomy sounds much more benign than a "breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”", yet that may be in the cards.

In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,” which is why efforts to integrate migrants will be demanding.

It is also to be doubted that Germans will subscribe to an “inclusive fitness perspective”, let alone a "religious and cultural groups mix". Mention the suggestion to "reproduce across group boundaries" to the majority of Germans and you might see open revolt in the streets, almost certainly mayhem in East Germany.

From an “inclusive fitness perspective” (Hamilton, 1964), integration will be successful if religious and cultural groups mix—that is, reproduce across group boundaries. In the case of such mixed reproduction, cooperation is expected to be high regardless of the cultural group to which the relatives and those related by marriage belong: Via their offspring, their grand-offspring, and subsequent generations of descendants, they share genes in common.

The AfD and strata of German society will ensure "the very strong “biological ties” of cooperation" and "sustainable social cohesion" albeit to the detriment of shitlib political parties.

Therefore, if cultural groups mix, the very strong “biological ties” of cooperation ensure sustainable social cohesion. Accordingly, these newly arising “mixed groups“ may form new minimal endogamous sets in subsequent generations (Whitmeyer, 1997) in which cooperation may be high. Genetic data suggest that this process may have often occurred during human evolution and migration (Patterson et al., 2012).

The future's so bright for Germany, you might want to wear shades.