Would also like to hear opinions on the author's claim that IQ could be increased 10-15 points on average, per generation. Sounds very unlikely to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua%E2%80%93Yi_distinction
"In its cultural form, the Hua–Yi distinction assumed Chinese cultural superiority, but also implied that outsiders could become Chinese by adopting Chinese values and customs."
What it means is Chinese identity is tied to culture, rather than tied to the actual physical body.
The author's article's point amounts to: "The smartest Chinese tend to be more successful and can afford more children, and this is eugenics."
While in reality the countryside folks (less density) can have more children than urban dwellers (typically one child).
Agreed, and it sounds like the author has an axe to grind for some odd reason. It's not eugenics that he's attacking only, note the implicit blame of "Darwinians" and "Galtonians" as being a cause for these policies.
The same could be true if we just killed low-IQ people, which would be horrific in practice and spirit.
I'm also not sure I particularly care for the "smart" people I know more than the "less smart." This is even more true for the "smart" people I don't know who seem to be making this world worse for all of us. I would pick those "smart" people to be culled, if I had to choose.
The whole premise is that "like produces like", which of course is nonsense. Dumb people have brilliant kids, ugly people produce beautiful children, and so on and so forth.
2. You are wrong vis-a-vis heritability of intelligence. It is largely determined by genes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
3. However - you are right in one respect. There is usually a 'pull to the mean'. That means that children of exceptional people tend to be closer to the average, thus they are not as gifted as the exceptional parent.
1) He was born with a markedly pointy head, which caused much consternation to his parents and relatives.
2) Was developmentally backward. Notably, he failed to acquire language skills for a significant period during his early childhood.
3) He was educationally subnormal, showing signs of what would now be diagnosed as ADHD,and drugged into a stupor.
4) Was bone lazy. I believe that 'schweinehunde' was the informal term used at the time for this condition.
5) Was disobedient and rebellious, or one of those 'malcontents' that perennially threaten to upset the applecart of society (the term 'hooligan' enjoyed a brief vogue for describing this condition).
6) Was Jewish. The eugenics movement designated Jews for mass sterilization, along with Blacks, Poles and the 'bloody Irish' (but then again, these were the same dolts who thought that sterilizing homosexuals would somehow serve to 'keep the race pure').
Albert Einstein was a prime candidate for this preemptive culling.
Note that nobody here advocated forced sterilizations (or killing off ugly babies).
All we said is that it's pretty much settled that intelligence is inheritable.
PS I will contend one point - and that is whether Jews were marked for mass sterilization. That is false.
Jews were marked by Nazis for extermination. However - people who advocated eugenics in other countries (like US or the UK) had no issues with Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States).
If anything, Jews (or more precisely Ashkenazi) are a poster child for eugenics - since really that's what they went through in the middle ages, which is used to explain their enormous achievement (see http://www.economist.com/node/4032638)
"Potentially, the results would allow all Chinese couples to maximize the intelligence of their offspring by selecting among their own fertilized eggs for the one or two that include the highest likelihood of the highest intelligence. Given the Mendelian genetic lottery, the kids produced by any one couple typically differ by 5 to 15 IQ points. So this method of "preimplantation embryo selection" might allow IQ within every Chinese family to increase by 5 to 15 IQ points per generation."
Stephen Hsu has written more about it here http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2014/10/genius-nautilus-magazin...
It's like being able to roll 100 times and picking the best one in D&D character creation. The improvement might not be able to be done infinitely, but could at least get us to everyone having IQ 130, which would mean a reduction in all the problems associated with lower IQ. (Crime, poverty, lack of educational achievement, bad health)
i.e. a father has two variants of chromosome 6, one good and one great. Why not make sure that his kids just "by chance" get the great one? There will be lots of tradeoffs, but it'd always be better to occasionally step in and make a choice than to always accept randomness.