An easy way out of this genetic conundrum, I think, would be the invention and introduction of neural implants that could enhance intelligence, processing complex problems for us.
One can make a case for stopping this trend, as you have for stopping research into human racial differences.
But the only way to enforce these stoppages would be to install a worldwide totalitarian system, a “solution” that is almost certainly worse than the problems.
I don't think it can be stopped either, but keeping it out of the mainstream is on the whole preferable to what could easily be the alternative. That wouldn't require government repression, but rather a social and cultural consensus which already exists.
IOW, we can’t stop this. We WILL have to deal with what is discovered.
If so, let it be gradual, peaceful and not particularly subversive.
No, that consensus doesn’t spontaneously exist, it is enforced, through “soft” tyranny. One day it won’t be so soft. South African whites are already seeing the truth of this, along with the disintegration of the only First World African nation.
We’re getting a taste of the “hard” kind of tyranny in the US, with the black on white crime rates and the suppression of those rates and any solution to them. There won’t be a solution, when the problem isn’t even acknowledged.
I generally agree.
I expect the world of the future to be immensely wealthy, producing a lot of "stuff" with very little human input. That is, of course, more or less the definition of productivity.
Such a world will be able to easily afford to provide everyone in the world with what we would now consider an upper middle class American lifestyle. As far as amount of "stuff" goes, that is.
But there is a much deeper issue when people have no purpose in their lives. For all history, that purpose has been for most people economic, the eternal struggle to provide for themselves and their families in an economy of scarcity.
What happens when there is no more scarcity? When there is no economic demand for the services most people are capable of providing?
Indian reservations, American ghettoes and British slums do not provide encouraging precedents of what happens when we remove the necessity for people to work, even though they objectively have a lot more "stuff" than their grandparents did.
As you intelligently point out, much conservative (and liberal, for that matter) ideology simply becomes irrelevant in a world of abundance rather than scarcity.
For example, the free market, beloved of conservatives and hated by liberals, is in its essence a way of most efficiently distributing scarce resources. In a world where most things aren't scarce, the market becomes irrelevant.
In Victorian England, and earlier times, those who had difficulty living independently often found occupations as house servants. They looked after the children of the middle and upper class, thus enabling the middle and upper classes to have larger families. Meanwhile, the servants were discouraged from having children themselves.