[servo_sausage]

This to me is one of the most apparent failures of modern taboo infecting people's ability to communicate, or even reason.

Eugenics is not ethical, for a variety of very good reasons; that does not mean that it's unscientific.

We know that intelligence is heritable; we have observed epigenetic group trends like the Flynn effect to the point where they plateau...

The biggest unknown in my opinion is how stable the gains we have made are. If we have our education systems disrupted, or some nutrition crunch, does the population average drop to the point where the complex systems we depend on are not maintained?

[davemp]

Eugenics is a taboo because there is a tempting trap to over simplify and make assertions that are not actually supported by the data.

We know that IQ is hereditary to an unknown degree. We have some evidence that IQ relates to intelligence.

We don’t know really know which genetic variables are responsible. Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

We don’t even really have a good definition of intelligence (see any AGI comment chain).

I would say that assuming we have good enough data or models to base important decisions on is unscientific.

Decisions like improving education and nutrition don’t really need to help.

[servo_sausage]

No, it's taboo because actually trying to implement it requires invalidating individual human rights... And requires creating an authority who decides what traits should be passed on or removed.

So people hear the word, and react to the word at some toddler level "it's yucky!", and stop reasoning altogether.

[numitus]

> Even simple features like height are thought to have ~12k variables.

But you wouldn't deny that there are groups of people who are tall and groups who are short.