[shanacarp]

I don't think you understand genetics.

There technically is no such thing as a "good" or "bad" gene, only an advantageous, disadvantageous, and neutral variant of a gene. Given that some genes can be read forwards and backwards, and that simple environmental causes, aka just changing an environment, can turn a disadvantageous gene expression into neutral or positive, it's hard to say something is eugenically good in a population unless it is a 1 gene mutation with 99% penetration that always causes death. (Huntingtons would be in this group)

Genomics says what you are saying is frankly impossible. If it weren't A) there would be no such thing as incomplete penetrance B) or traits linked to multiple genes C) or ways to manipulate social science statistics with simple experiments, like subsidizing iuds for high school students and seeing what happens. That's a purely environmental factors, and yet your supposed "bottom 20" stops acting like it as thier environment changes in one subtle way

Where did you get the Idea that any of what you are saying is scientifically sound?