Let's assume there even is a global optimum. Why do we think this global optimum would be invariant on environment? We have clear examples of species that fail to adapt to their changing environment quickly enough dying off. If you took the survivors of a change and then changed things back, those survivors might die again. That means you are fit to the environment you find yourself in. As the environment changes, you're not "better" or "worse" than someone who's more fit to a different environment.
Humanity is not getting strictly better on all stats. It's like a video game. We might tweak improve some stats and have to give up others. We are a bit more unique in that we largely optimize for the environment we create for ourselves, but that doesn't mean humans are constantly "getting better" over time. You could maybe try arguing that the human condition has improved over time due to technology, medicine, etc, but even that's an imperfect analysis because our historical record is so inaccurate.
What if there's a level of intelligence above which humans decide not to reproduce?
To my eye we’ve simply unlocked medical science and have taken control of reproduction to the point where it’s not critical to the species for everyone to reproduce. I’d be more concerned about all the plastics and chemicals that are now circulating in our bodies slowly decreasing our ability to reproduce than us as a species being too dumb to reproduce. That position just doesn’t have an existence proof point (no pandas don’t count because while it’s a funny pop meme, all evidence suggests they just can’t/won’t mate in captivity and it’s environmental for them).
I'm not. I was replying to the following question:
> What if there's a level of intelligence above which humans decide not to reproduce?
It seems obvious to me that a species that drives itself to extinction cannot be considered intelligent. Doubly so if it does that due to lack of reproduction.
> it’s not critical to the species for everyone to reproduce
It is. Every couple must have a certain amount of children in order to simply maintain a stable population.
On average. That doesn't mean that every single couple needs to reproduce. In fact, historically, that's certainly not been the case because some couples are just incapable while others reproduce far more than the average.
This reminds me of a meta-system-transition where simplified versions of individual (previously independent) units can lead to a unified cooperative whole that works better at the meta-system level (similar to what led to eukaryotes or to multicellularity). It's like a sacrifice that the individuals make (of things that might have looked like intelligence in the previous context) in order to be able to work together better, and these kinds of transitions have worked out extremely well for life, so far! (I guess I am biased, being alive and everything!?)
Should humans resist the formation of human meta-systems? Human/robot meta-systems? Certainly seems like a good chance that an extremely successful meta-system could be dangerous to the rest of the regular humans!? But if it's actually better, then that's just normal (meta) evolution.
No. I'm saying humans should not lose abilities or features because of it. We should be able to live comfortable lives and still maintain peak physical and mental performance. Any changes in our nature should not go against that.
Also, assuming the conclusions of the article in any way prove a shift in intelligence (it doesn't), you'd still be looking at averages which tells you nothing about the effect it has on total number at population. Maybe there's an upper bound of "smart" people or "strong" people modern society demands. Certainly as a skill becomes more commoditized it becomes less valuable economically. Maybe we've got too many smart people now because a lot of people saw the explosion in value of such careers?
Also "better" and "worse" only mean something relative to an end. I do not deny ends (I take human nature to be teleological, for example), but many "evolutionists" (i.e., those who accept a basically materialistic worldview) do deny the reality of ends (and are wholly incapable of accounting for them even if reduced to mental phenomena by virtue of having painted themselves into a metaphysical corner).
We already have little bits of eugenics baked into law and culture. Why not a little bit more? It doesn't have to involve death camps.
I guess, like censorship, people only object to an arbitrary subset of it. People love censorship of "really bad" ideas just as they love eugenics of "really bad" genes.
Most people seem happy with asserting our authority of gene selection over animals though :P Conservationism is that. Not to mention actual selective breeding and killing of course. Perhaps we rightly believe humans truly are capable of being benevolent arbiters of who gets to reproduce and who doesn't in animals.
With animal breeding, there's almost always a set goal. Getting a fatter, tastier, more hardy, or in the extreme, aesthetically pleasing animal.
I doubt we'd really use eugenics for any of them. However, a pure eugenicist might say "Well, why not? Why not select for people less prone to cancer, more physically fit, with better immune systems?"
So then it comes into the question of what eugenics has historically been used for. The worst example would probably be the sterilization of gay people. We used it against mental illness in an age where lobotomy was considered a good treatment for mental illnesses such as hyperactivity.
And all of this, of course, sort of belays the fact that for humans there seems to be no reason why we couldn't use gene therapy in place of breeding programs. Why do we need eugenics when we can directly target the aspects we want in the future generation (and quite a few people would opt in for those changes).
We already seem some of this just in genetic testing of embryos and fetuses. When people know a fetus has downs syndrome, they get abortions and try again. I could see the same with a whole host of chronic illnesses.
It really is pretty similar to the kinds of things that are used to advocate against E2E encryption. An attempt to have the state encroach on territory that used to be private.