[justin_vanw]

I'm removing my comments since apparently engaging in a thought experiment makes me an inhuman monster.

I don't have a CS degree and I'm fairly well versed in philosophy. I suggest you take a closer look at your assumptions, it may be that you can't get to the truth entirely by quoting Gould.

Frankly it astonishes me that you don't accept that income is more correlated to intelligence today than it was when a large percentage of the population were slaves, or when people were legally bound to the land they lived on? Are you just disagreeing with everything I say out of reflex?

[shkkmo]

I can't see what arguments you made as you've papered over everything. I've had to infer a lot.

> Frankly it astonishes me that you don't accept that income is more correlated to intelligence today than it was when a large percentage of the population were slaves, or when people were legally bound to the land they lived on?

That may be true. It is, however, irrelevant for three reasons: 1) intelligence is still not the dominant factor when it comes to income. 2) Even if intelligence were the dominant factor in predicting income, that wouldn't mean that poverty itself is caused by having too many stupid people. 3) The rate of genetic change due to any such program would be so slow as to be meaningless on the timeframes we need to measure the results in.

I think needlessly bringing up genetics sunk the ability for people to consider your idea, which is actually fairly mainstream.

Your idea bears consideration. Not because it would have much of an impact genetically, but because it could have an impact demographically. Since the largest predictor of income is your parents SES, decreasing the proportion of children born to low SES parents could itself have positive impacts as fewer children need to face the challenges of growing up poor.

Indeed, many have argued that the legalization of abortion had exactly this type of effect: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/-what-e...

Beyond just fewer kids growing up poor, propoganda/education supporting family planning and access to birth control/abortion can directly improve the future income potential of poor women. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/27/contraceptio...

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>I'm removing my comments since apparently engaging in a thought experiment makes me an inhuman monster.

You really shouldn't use this cop out. I understand your fear of future employers reading what you've written here but if you have the gall to say that poverty is genetic and we should encourage the poor not to procreate at least have the gall to stand behind it.

[justin_vanw]

I certainly never said either of those things, but this is a great example of why I removed the comments. If some wondering about a hypothetical future dystopia offend you this much it tells me that the thought police might come after me, so is it worth it to participate in a discussion with people like you?

[frgtpsswrdlame]

We both know that you weren't 'wondering about a hypothetical future dystopia' you were talking about your sincere beliefs. Only that once those beliefs came into the light they looked really ugly, so you've stashed them away again and are pretending it's not what you really think. Come on. You think poverty is mostly genetic and that rich people are, on average, genetically superior. You think once capitalism begins to come a bit undone the poors are going to start breeding like rabbits. You think that's super bad so we need to use government propaganda to get them to stop breeding. You think once we reach a certain point of genetic technology we'll be able to remove all the poor genes and no one will be poor anymore. If you'd left your comments up it'd be clear that this was no thought experiment and you're just backpedaling. I'd much rather see you change your beliefs than whining about the 'thought police' when someone calls out your poverty-essentialism and eugenical ideas.