Biological evolution is irrelevant to humans.

[Drag]

Lebowski's post about de-evolution reminded about one idea.

Some definitions:

'Biological evolution' is the normal Darwinian process that we see in nature. Mutations create variety, natural selection leaves only the most fit.

If the variety is created not by random mutations or the selection operates not by the survival of the most fit, then I'd call it a 'technological evolution'. Creating the mutations in mice by introducing new genes and choosing the mice not by the survival rate, but according to some parameter is an example of 'technological evolution'.

Time scales:

The relevant scale for a 'biological evolution' is about 100 000 years. The relevant scale for a 'technological evolution' is much smaller. I am not sure what it really is, as we haven't created a new species by this process, but I'd guess that if we would try we would be able (even by present means) to genetically engineer a separate mice species in less than 1000 years.

Conclusion:

With such a difference in characteristic time scales 'biological evolution' becomes irrelevant (for humans). The next change in humans will be because of technology, not because of biology. We will change our genes, or we will integrate with AI. (Probably not in 20 years as some predict, but in 10000 years for sure.)

If you agree up to this point, then all the talk about stupid people giving birth to more children, than smart people is irrelevant. There is not much genetic difference between these children (see relevant time scale), what matters is culture/education/science/technology which they can understand and develop.

Agree/disagree?