[lopmotr]

You mean racial mixing should be chosen by cultural preferences/technology/wealth, which what's always been happening, rather than scientific reasons aimed at improving anything? I can't see how arbitrary human culture is any better than more purposeful breeding. Culture selects for racial purity in some cases, and for mixing in others, but it often depends on political history - Koreans don't want to mix with Japanese because politics, not because they're too far away from each other. Is politics really a better decider than science?

Use race for eugenics though is a very coarse metric and I wouldn't advocate for it unless we somehow lacked any better measures. I think a better program would measure performance in whatever criteria people think are desirable and go for those regardless of race. It might turn out that the tallest people are black, and you end up with a lot of black genes if you like tallness. So it might look racist, and it might shrink the populations of some races relative to others. But again, that's what already happens through arbitrary reasons anyway. We're already breeding more blacks and less whites simply because blacks are generally poorer than whites and poor people tend to have more children. I don't see how you can be happy with that (selecting for poverty!) but not with people putting the quality of their children ahead of their own personal desire to spread their genes.

[dang]

Would you please stop using HN for generic ideological arguments? They lead to nothing new, only generic ideological flamewars, the thing we need least here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[lopmotr]

It's not ideological. I'm trying to understand some apparent contradictions in popular beliefs.