"No, we are not created equal. But we are endowed by our Creator with the ideal of equality, and the intelligence to finish the job."

For the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that Saletan's views, regardless of whether they are correct, become the mainstream. Try to imagine yourself in a mindset where you accept a primary genetic explanation for racial differences in IQ test scores while dismissing most of the counter evidence and nagging objections.

Wouldn't eugenics make a lot of sense to someone who has such a low standard of proof? This isn't an appeal to consequence or a slippery slope question. If intelligence is primarily genetic, then it could be one of the most important evolutionary traits. If you've already gone out on a limb and decided that certain people are gentically deficient in terms of intelligence, it's fair to ask what the next logical step is.

Saletan brought up a missing a breastmilk / IQ gene common in African babies. Take that specific example: in our hypothetical future, wouldn't it make more sense to simply have the government provide incentives for those missing the gene not to have children rather than attempt any sort of large scale genetic manipulation through techniques that we haven't even perfected yet?

I would think the answer is yes. To be clear, I don't believe that the data is anywhere near conclusive to say that genes are a primary determinant to someone's intelligence. But if there are people who do believe it, then isn't it likely they also support eugenics in some form?

What else could their next step be?

Of course genes are a primary determinant of intelligence.

The question is how is intelligence tested for. The idea that current IQ tests are adequate when they differentiate racial group IQs on the order of a WHOLE STANDARD OF DEVIATION OR GREATER is most likely wrong.

All things being equal environmentally blacks and whites are likely only a handful of IQ points different from each other on their group averages.

You pose the question “Is Saletan advocating eugenics?”

Implicit in your question is the concern that knowledge of race inequality will lead to the genocide of “inferior” people or some such thing.

Fair enough. But let’s look at the situation from the opposite angle: If forced eugenics is morally wrong - then isn't forced DYSGENICS morally wrong as well?

The United States welfare system was originally designed to give people lift people out of poverty and improve their lives. Over time, this system grew into a leviathan of government services (Section 8 housing, WIC, Welfare, SSI, etc) that has served to increase (not decrease) the lower class.

Today, 70% of all black children in the US are born out of wedlock. Nearly half of all children born to Hispanic mothers in the US are born out of wedlock and the Hispanic birthrate is twice as high as the rest of the American population. As millions more continue to pour in, America finds itself subsidizing Third World levels of fertility.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist (or eugenicist) to see where all this is going. For a glimpse of the future we are creating for ourselves, just take a look at Los Angeles: Poverty, crime, gang violence, overcrowded schools and closed hospitals . Since poor, low skilled people consume more in social services than they pay back in taxes, it's just a matter of time before the system collapses. Not very progressive!

The sobering fact is this: The people with the lowest IQs are having the most amount of children and the people with the highest IQs are having the least.

Now, if I called for a Eugenics program designed to increase the number of intelligent children, anti-racists would scream "Not with my tax money!" And they would have every right to do so.

Yet the very opposite program is currently in practice: the government takes money away from the high IQ population to subsidize the births of the low IQ population.

This IS a eugenics program - EUGENICS IN REVERSE!

Personally, I call for Eugenic Neutrality. Neither sterilization NOR subsidization of low IQ populations.

See I agree with you about illegal immigration reversing and stopping it. I just dislike the sentiments you've expressed. Are you yet another atheist or someone who merely perceives themselves as of the faith.

He hasn't addressed my blue-eyed theory yet. That trumps them all!

(blue-eyed superiority is confirmed with NFL pro quarterback correlation)