Ah, it's you again, with another "if X how come Y, checkmate alt-right" type post. Your post seems to be based on a huge strawman, namely, that we believe genetics fully determine everyones behaviour and outcomes in life.

I've only seen the Alt-right take a hardline approach that genes are in fact destiny. People who are moderate or skew towards the left believe in both genetics and environments, but that IQ itself is malleable. And historical evidence absolutely does point to such cases. Flynn effect shows we are in fact smarter than our ancestors, even if the same ancestors were capable of building giants castles we don't quite see anymore. Asian countries like China & Japan were still significantly lagging behind Europe in development but come the 21st century, Japan has in many ways surpassed the West and China is basically second world where it rivals the west in being both better and worst in some ways. Yet the Japanese or Chinese didn't magically inherit White peoples genes all these years. You could argue their diets could have changed or something but do a DNA test and show me if their results skew towards being nothing like their ancestors, or still containing the same traces of it?

Regardless of whether true free will actually exists or not, the murderer should still be removed from polite society, in order to protect the innocent from becoming the murderer's next victims (at least until the murderer has been sucessfully rehabilitated into a better person, if not permanently), get punished to deliver justice to the victim's friends and relatives (and society at large), and should definitely get forcibly sterilized so he can't (further) corrupt the gene pool.

So assuming these people don't understand the harm of their actions, you believe in a smarter group of society dealing appropriate punishment? Why stop at the subject murder and not say, apply this to everything?

Funny that you mention a dystopia where human beings are treated like animals, because if you're strongly opposed to such a society (which I am), you should actually be supporting eugenics, and racial homogeneity, rather than opposing them, since improving people so they become smarter and less prone to commit crime, and not importing foreign peoples with conflicting group interests, would actually reduce the need for an extensive, totalitarian police state to keep society safe and stable.

If you and I supported eugenics, it also means we're taking the chances with being born. Regardless if you are healthy, some doctor or political organization could have looked at your mother's womb, say "naw, abort the kid" and you would have never known life. Even though I understand the arguments that eugenics could be used to eliminate certain diseases, what if being liberal is considered a defect? Or Alt-right? It's labels like these that are perfect for an Elite group to reshape society as they see fit.

Killing babies is evil and disgusting as fuck regardless of the reasons and circumstances, but if if they detirmined my future child would be genetically prone to have a low IQ and/or be a rapist in the early stages of my wife's pregnancy, I'd definitely get her to terminate the pregnancy. Likewise, I think people who are genetically prone to have low-IQs and/or be rapists (but haven't acutally raped anyone) shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but they should still be treated humanely, and get taken care of if needed. So if it was up to me, we shouldn't allow those babies to keep being born, but for those who have already been born it isn't their fault so they should be treated with dignity just like everyone else.

Interesting opinion. Once again, I'm open to respecting other people's viewpoints.

That would be highly unlikely, since I'm not a terrorist, but if it indeed got detirmed I would be so genetically prone to terrorism, I would definitely refrain from reproducing so the gene pool wouldn't get corrupted with my genes, and instead encourage my close relatives to reproduce a lot.

Now here's something I want you to think about. What if the same genes for terrorism are tied to genes for empathy? Or the genes that could make someone rapist are also connected to being a great singer? Human DNA is extraordinarily complex, that maybe now you can understand my fear of reducing people or groups to single labels? Especially if we learned all this time Humans have the ability to resist their own nature despite it being hardwired in us?

There's no reason to believe that scientific racialism and eugenicism are uniquely prone to make a society commit large-scale atrocities, since almost none of the countries where such beliefs dominated (except for nazi Germany) carried out large-scale atrocities, and almost none of the societies which historically carried out large-scale atrocities held such beliefs. Almost any ideology is capable of making carry out atrocities.

Not true. South Africa pushed many atrocities under Apartheid. WW2 Japan enslaved or slaughtered many other Asians in the name of superiority. In the USA, the defense of the slave trade stemmed from pseudo-scientific ideas that Africans were born to serve White people (there's a famous scene from the movie Django Unchained, where a slave owner brags about his African slaves having different shaped skulls as to why they wont fight back). Correlation does not imply causation however, so you're right that the study of race doesn't have to be villainous. But at the same time, it did lead to huge amounts of suffering that could have deliberately been avoided. Like Nazi Germany for example, Hitler didn't have to create death squads whose only purpose was exterminating Jews,Russians,Gypsies etc and resettling conquered areas with only German people. Or Japanese scientists would also capture Chinese civilians and cut them apart to study their bodies. Race Science took inhumanity to a whole new level.

In World War 2, Germany was completely bombed into in ruins, and directly after World War 2 it got occupied by the allied forces. Yet it didn't become a shithole. Quite the contrary, within only a couple of decades, West Germany became one of the most prosperous and advanced nations in the world

The allies were not going to let West Germany fall behind. The Marshall Plan was specifically created to get many European countries back on their feet and counter the new Communist threat. Meanwhile, you left out East Germany which was in fact a shithole and ruled by a dictator.

What's holding most third world countries back from following in Germany's footsteps?

France demands many former African colonies still pay a special tax to them. Or how about the many foreign sponsored wars in the Middle East? It's hard to rebuild your country when predator drones are flying outside your house and they just blew up the only hospital in the province. So yes, it's fair to say foreign intervention is holding many places back.