All that I suggest is an objective test of knowledge and intelligence and that those who score below the 50th percentile (cumulative for the past 5 years or so, to provide some stability to the system) not be allowed to reproduce. No gas chambers or death camps, nothing so dramatic as you people like to pretend, just simple sterilization then they can live their lives when they see fit.
But who are YOU to determine who gets to reproduce and who doesn't? This is a radically unscientific and quite Fundamentalist approach and worldview to have.
This way, in 60-80 years when nature runs its course the human species will have been improved.
Apparently Carl Sagan was wrong. The art of prophecy is not lost as you seem to have it.
The problem with your statements is that they must be taken on, for lack of a better word, on faith. You have no idea what the outcome of such breeding control would lead to. If someone like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins was reading this he would be ashamed of what you are writing. What you are proposing is no different than when some ultra right wing Catholics says outrageous things like "we better breed more because if we don't the Muslims will out number us!"
GiC certainly you, an intelligent person can see that such population control such as you are proposing is in a sense Fundamentalist in nature. You have the whole of the world, evolution, the future of humanity all figured out, and you're going to tell us in an attempt to "save us". You have answers to questions that no one has the answers to. You are in fact proving the very point that many of the New Atheists often make, that Communism, Stalin and places like North Korea commit evils not because they are atheist, or in the name of atheism, but because the "atheism" is really but a cover for a weird sort of pseudo-scientific, pseudo-religious world view.
Atheists are supposed to be rational and compassionate. Most in fact are. Probably more rational than most religious people. I'm sure you are too. As you said you're not suggesting anyone be killed, but yet here you are suggesting irrational things, like how you somehow know population control will in fact "improve" humanity. In reality you have no idea how such a thing would in fact play out. Chaos theory pretty much guarantees that. for all you know it could split off humanity into two species and we could destroy one another. And even if you're scenario worked and in fact humanity got a whole lot "more intelligent", if we lose our compassion in the process is the cost of that loss actually worth it?
Now some may argue that this is artificial, not natural, selection, which is true. However, we have allowed the stupid and ignorant to benefit from the advances of the intelligent...we give a person with an 80 IQ the same heart medication as the inventor of said heart medication; we have interfered with the processes of natural selection so if we want our species to continue to improve it would be reasonable to create a viable replacement.
We also "allow" you
to benefit from the stronger and more fit, from the inventor of new medications etc. Farmers, who likely don't have as high of an IQ as you do, "allow" you to eat their food and not starve to death. Could you fend for yourself if tomorrow all our technology came crashing down around us? The farmer or the woodsmen certainly could but could you? In such a scenario all of a sudden your IQ might mean absolutely nothing. All the book learning in the world would mean nothing. You claim you want to advance humanity but how is humanity advanced if we begin to so the exact same thing Religious fanatics have done for thousands of years, but we simply substitute "heretics" with "stupid people!" What makes a "stupid" person anyway? Where do you draw the line between someone who "contributes to society" and one who doesn't? And on who's authority do we then decide someone who is "contributing" enough and someone who is not? What about all the geniuses in the world, who for all their brilliance and intellect contributed absolutely nothing to society but horror, death and mayhem. Geniuses invented the atom bomb. So should we now take all "geniuses" and sterilize them? Or maybe just all physicists?
And again, who determines who is contributing and who is not? You? What gives you that authority? Maybe I should be the authority? How do we determine this? By the evolutionary model? Okay. The classic expression of that would be if I kill you with my bare hands I choose, if you kill me with your bare hands then you get to choose! But that doesn't seem like a very rational or intelligent way of solving problems or the dangers our species may face in the future.
Oh yes, you said you're not in favor of killing anyone. conceded. Only for sterilizing. Well maybe our fight to the death can merely be a fight and if I rip off your testicles I win. And vice versa. Chimpanzees our closest relatives do it. Why not us? Of course you're suggesting something painless, with medication and doctors. But it's still the dominance hierarchy. You're still the "alpha male" trying to impose your will upon an "out group". For you the "out group" is people with low IQs. But it's the imposition of one will over another weaker group all for a "cause" of bettering humanity in the far future. Dialogue, discussion about ethics, reproduction, and genetics doesn't get us very far, so why not go with the old stand by; my way or the highway?
and overall our the birth rate should be controlled so that we average no more than one child per two adults (two children per two adults allowed to reproduce, the upper 50 percentile)...at least until we get our population under control. The United States has about 2-3 times as many people as we need, most of Europe and Asia is MUCH worse.
Please don't conflate the very real topic of population control with breeding control. They are two very different things and you will do no good to anyone by confusing the two subjects.
So stop overreacting, I'm not proposing something absurd and radical, I'm just proposing common sense.
First, what you are proposing is quite radical. Many atheists would find you to be on the extreme end of the spectrum here. And some like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris would probably even suggest that you were proposing a new form of "religious thinking" in the guise of science. This really surprises me actually because while I find I disagree with you often enough, I find your arguments to be sound and quite convincing. But this is just a bit out there.
You seem to be looking for a future "golden age" of humanity where everyone is really, really smart. But at what cost? And what if in fact tomorrow, an alien species came here and decided to sterilize ALL of humanity because they deemed we were all just too stupid to reproduce. Would that be something you'd be in favor of? Maybe you would actually. At least that would be consistent. However it still seems to me just as another form of a dominance hierarchy, which most atheists find to be deplorable in religion, but superimposed upon science. For me the question boils down to "who decides"? By what authority? Science has no "authority" so it(or something) would essentially need a dictator to determine who gets to reproduce and who doesn't, but all for the betterment of humanity of course!
This reminds of the movie I-Robot where the mother computer reprograms all the robots to turn the world into a dictatorship (with her in charge of course) all so that humanity would be "better off". She doesn't advocate violence or killing anyone either. But most people intuitively "know" that she is the villain, not the hero. I suppose you would side with the computer though and not Will Smith, which is sci-fi heresy to go against Will Smith!