TL;DR: Eugenics is about improving human genetics. I'm an [effective altruist](https://www.effectivealtruism.org/) regarding eugenics. Any eugenic policies need to non-coercive. There needs to be more thought on traits beside IQ. Considering the controversial nature of the topic, I thought I might clearly give my views on eugenics in order to not be misunderstood. What is eugenics? [A set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) For those who dislike using Wikipedia as a source, [Eugenics is the philosophy and social movement that argues it is possible to improve the human race and society by encouraging reproduction by people or populations with “desirable” traits (termed “positive” eugenics) and discouraging reproduction by people with “undesirable” qualities (termed “negative” eugenics).](http://pged.org/history-eugenics-and-genetics/) I prefer the to think of eugenics like the part of the Wikipedia quote because that can include genetic engineering, but the second quote does helpfully include definitions of positive and negative eugenics. Why do I support eugenics? I'm a humanist. I would define humanism as [devotion to human welfare.](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism) Considering how welfare typically turns out and how mass migration goes, careful thought must be paid to how best to improve human welfare. To think about what is best for humans, it is first necessary to understand what a human is. The answer is that a human is an organism. The blueprint for any organism is DNA. I could have thought about it in terms of atoms, but that level of [reductionism](https://www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/) isn't useful (as far as I can see). The genetic level is useful because [all human behavioral traits are heritable. ](https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/the-five-laws-of-behavioral-genetics/) How do I envision eugenics being carried out? Personally, I support both positive and negative eugenics. I know there are arguments to be made on the decency of negative eugenics. I support abortion, but it makes me uneasy. Being a eugenic humanist does not resolve tensions between humanist morals and eugenic practices fully, but that is why discussion is so important. I am fond of quite a few positive eugenic practices. I think saving sperm and eggs should be cheaper, there should be college loan forgiveness for very intelligent people (especially if they already have a kid or kids), subsidizing high IQ people having kids and more. I am also fond of quite a few negative eugenic practices. Limiting low IQ individuals from immigrating, reforming the welfare to disincentivize having kids, paying for sterilization and more. Where eugenics of the past went wrong is that it was coercive. Forced sterilization is wrong. Coercive measures like that have poisoned the well for far too long. Social Darwinism is not appropriate either. Nature did not choose those with a high IQ or any other positive traits, so acting as though some individuals have divine right over others is simply haughty. Darwin ~~the Lord Himself~~ [would most likely agree.](https://bigthink.com/words-of-wisdom/charles-darwin-would-be-ashamed-of-social-darwinism) I know I have made a lot of references to IQ. It's not the only trait, but it is important. However, so are [personality traits](https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newCDV_22.htm). I think more conscientious people is wondrous goal. We also have to consider what makes good [leaders](https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/08/20/natural-aristocracy/). IQ gets a bit too much attention and more talk of eugenics would hopefully produce good thought and practical policy on other human traits important to healthy societies.