Replies

the same eugenic logic preached by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who called for “more children from the fit, fewer from the unfit.”

Nobody has ever given me a logical or scientific, as opposed to a moral, reason why such a policy is inappropriate.

Generally speaking, throughout the world, successful people reproduce at a much lower rate than unsuccessful people. Over time, it is logical that this will result in a reduction in the average competence of the human race as a whole, and a growing percentage of less-competent and perhaps even less-intelligent people.

This is, in a sense, evolution in reverse. It is "survival of the less fit." No sentient farmer would ever put such a breeding program in place for his stock. Humans are not just animals, but we are animals, and as such are as subject to the laws of genetics as any other animal.

Nobody wants to talk about the possible consequences of such a policy over the long run.

"Over time, it is logical that this will result in a reduction in the average competence of the human race as a whole, and a growing percentage of less-competent and perhaps even less-intelligent people."

There is the phenomenon of regression to the mean, which helps to mitigate this effect.

"No sentient farmer would ever put such a breeding program in place for his stock."

That is why parents what their kids to go to top colleges, whose admissions directors select for the highest intelligence. Attendance at one of the top schools brands one as being top breeding stock. This was the main theme of The Bell Curve.

In order to have a productive society you do not need everyone to be highly intelligent, but you do need a certain percentage to be highly intelligent, as a glance around the world shows.