Sure, you have more pressing challenges under these conditions. Some centuries ago, Europe experienced similar conditions, but still had more breakthrough inventions. Hence, I agree with you to some degree, but believe you are somewhat oversimplifying the situation.

Without having IQ Test information from thousands of years ago, I think it's entering dangerous territory to compare intelligence levels of people from the past with that of the present. In fact, it creates many contradictions. For example, lets pretend that ok, Europeans were always geniuses and they had a IQ of 100 or more. Why would IQ levels ever improve at all, especially when education, sanitation, public nutrition have all gotten dramatically better over the years? Even notorious IQ scientists like Richard Lynn admitted as much when he compared test scores of East Germans in 1992 and in 1998, and found differences as big as 50% when Germans were freed from Communism. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/roivainen.pdf And I don't like using Lynn as a reference, because he is an extremely dishonest researcher (i.e, he was once caught using the scores of disabled Spanish children and writing them in for African countries). But back on topic, East Germans can't be dumber than their own ancestors given the type of development that still existed (cars, jets, assault rifles. They didn't regress into Cavemen...)

Obviously, our media talks more about the situation here and thus, we often do not hear about African inventors. I am not sure, why you think, this should be impossible for Africans. An average does not mean, that everyone has the same skills.

When the media prefers to show the worst parts of the third world , it creates a self perpetuating image that they have no hope or that they can't look after themselves. You don't see the media trying to cover Japan by showing only their worst slums for example. In regards to averages, the same IQ studies literally say that entire African countries fall far below mental retardation. Even that one example of the child living in poverty but building a windmill should raise eyebrows. How do we know what life is really like when I explained the media already has a huge bias against documenting these success stories? There could very well be many more African inventors out there, but the current obstacles of war and media bias make it hard to observe from afar.

Yes, I fully agree with this. That's why I said "assuming [...] there are no important side effects of those genes". Sure, 100% certainty will probably never exist, but there might be a point at which we are certain enough to accept the situation.

Fair enough.

This is a serious threat, but not the system I advocate for. I advocate for becoming the President myself or at least have someone leading the country, who broadly shares my views. Sure, some evil guy might take control of the government and commit such horrible crimes, but this situation exists in every society. Even in the most liberal state, some bad guy might take power, change the laws and start committing genocide. I invite you to help us creating a system, that tries to prevent the takeover by horrible people.

Fair enough.

Every society needs some rules. Someone has to make the decision. Even if some actions are subjective or even outside our control (what I do not think). even then you need some rules. Some biological determinist might believe some people will kill others anyways. Even if this were right (and I highly doubt this), even then I do not see any good reason, why we should not imprison the killer. Sure, in this scenario it is not his fault, but he still is a danger to the rest of society.

Punishing people that murder is fair. Evaluating the system that hands out these sentences is worth looking into. For example, if an Elite group decides life in prison is a fair sentencing, but science says that is not necessary to maintain a safe society, who do we trust? And even when shown the evidence and the Elite group reject calls to change the justice system, what then? You can start to understand my process of why healthy skepticism is always important, even in situations where another group believes all their actions are meant to keep society safe.

Interesting question. China was once the world's leading nation, but stagnated for centuries due to too much homogeneity, especially with regards to speech. So no, I do not believe that anyone should get imprisoned for being a liberal, a conservative or whatever. His genes should not be changed. The only exception would be, if someone advocated for ending our own people. Then he might need a gene alteration, because this sounds like a serious mental illness. Ending here does not mean genocide in the sense of killing (this would be advocating for violence and thus a crime anyways), but more like saying everyone has to mix with foreigners, so that our genes are bred away.

This may be a hard pill to swallow, but what if the majority of humans will always carry the genes for race mixing or diversity? Genetic purity was never really a thing for the millions of years human ancestry stretches back. Of course, there's nothing stopping the Alt-right from still trying to remove it, but think back to what I said about nature giving these traits a purpose. Race mixing could have lead to something advantageous, such as inheriting the minds of Neanderthals that is now found in Human DNA. There is also a such thing as hybrid vigor, which is meant to counter the effects of interbreeding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

Of course, I understand the opposite arguments exists as well. Race mixing could present dangers to lowing IQ or making bone marrow transplants more difficult. Ultimately, you are taking a 50:50 chance with these removing genes.