> the morally right thing to do is _still_ to allow people the same opportunities to excel, and succeed or fail on their merits.
let me play devils' advocate for a minute: should the cutting edge of human endeavour (in the case of the movie, it's going to space) be available to all and sundry, even tho statistically the superior humans would do better and thus achieve the goals of said endeavour?
If it costs the equivalent of billions or even trillions of dollars, would you make the choice to allow equal opportunity to all, at the cost of potential mission failure, rather than discriminate heavily and only allow those considered perfect?
I agree that discrimination is usually bad. But is it really discrimination, or is it competition, to only allow those that would be statistically overwhelmingly likely to be better to do the thing?