[ QUOTE ]
I submit that this is total nonsense. While there
are potential dangers with a poorly crafted eugenics program, it's trivial to think of an example where this isn't the case. For example, removing the bottom 50% (in terms of intelligence) of each ethnic group. IMO this would greatly benefit the human gene pool and the long term success of the human race, with few drawbacks.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a more politically palatable way to increase our collective I.Q.s, if that were our goal -- propaganda. What members of our species find sexually attractive is heavily influenced by social conditioning. If we made a concerted effort to link intelligence to desirability in the minds of the public (in a manner similar to the successful efforts
DeBeers made to link diamonds to prestige), the result would likely be an increase in the breeding rates of the more intelligent among us. Our popular culture currently does the exact opposite, largely painting the intelligent as undesirable nerds. Indeed, if one pays attention, it is obvious that some of the brightest among us actively conceal their intelligence much of the time. And they are undoubtedly more popular because of it. It wouldn't be extremely difficult to invert those societal values given our current understandings of effective advertising. The result wouldn't be an immediate increase in our intelligence over the course of a generation, but rather a slow upward march. Using a method like this would have the benefit of preserving some useful genetic traits that, by chance, may be present in only some of our less intelligent members. Of course, it may be difficult to maintain social stability if the masses of humanity become too intelligent to manipulate easily, so whether this should be a goal at all is certainly debatable.