Since it doesn't make anyone else dumber, weaker or uglier, this mostly sounds like an argument based in envy.
There is no "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" in Nature. These are not objective measurements. They are all judgements passed comparatively to the rest of humanity.
- Someone who can lift 100 kg is stronger than someone who can only lift 80 kg.
- Someone who understand that is smarter than someone who doesn't.
You could possibly have an argument about "ugly".
If I can lift 10 kg this week, and 20 kg next week, am I strong, or ("just") stronger than before?
That someone can lift 100 kg is an objective attribute of that person.
You talked about "dumb", "weak" or "ugly" instead, and have stuck to it.
So I suppose you're right within your changed phrasing, because you chose to talk about something different than my point.
My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. That it was actually impossible to use the nouns themselves ("dumb", "weak", "ugly"), exactly because there cannot be any objective measure of it in nature.
Yes, you lift Nkg. You weight Mkg. You measure Xcm. That does not tell whether you are strong, heavy or tall. These are all meaningless in a vacuum. More importantly, it does not tell whether you are stronger, heavier, taller. Stronger, heavier, taller than what, than whom?
You were excluding this context in you analysis, telling that the poors would not lose anything as they would not be worse off from their former self. The context here is that they are not measured against humanity decades, centuries earlier, but to their contemporaries, the elites that would design their babies.
It is impossible to abstract this context from the comparison, precisely because it is a comparison, and because the only meaningful comparison is that which concerns contemporaries.
It seems like you honestly can't tell the difference. Thanks for the chat!