Politically incorrect ways of realistically solving the primary problems we face today and in the future

E.O. Wilson points out that perhaps of the three primary problems we are facing now, climate change, population growth, and species extinction, population growth is the biggest of them, and Wilson advocates, among other things, that women of the world have no more than 2.1 children per woman---any more than that dooms the planet.  But progressive leaders never speak of the quality of the people being born: we know that when intelligence declines then civilization as we have known it declines. IQ correlates with many sociobiological factors, and these things have been determined objectively by science.

A few professors, such as Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, have shown that global inequality can be explained by national IQ's, that is, differences in intelligence are based on small genetic differences between populations, which relates to global inequality. Lynn and Vanhanen propose such things as improving the quality of nutrition for pregnant women and infants, because IQ is also related to early nutrition. And then we have one or two people, like the late psychologist Raymond Cattell, who would initiate voluntary eugenic programs for improving the genetic qualities of people, poor and rich.

It takes courage to suggest these things because the political correctness of cultural Marxism which now rules the academic world and the big media virtually crucifies or ruins the career any person who mentions the diversity of intelligence or improving intelligence.

I would affirm the full development of genetic technologies, even selecting traits at the level of embryos, gene sequencing, etc, which could give a wider amount of selection power to couples. I believe we also need to continue the cultural and political affirmation of evolution toward higher intelligence, health, personalty, beauty and athleticism. This biological path toward higher intelligence, health, personalty, beauty, and athleticism, which we all want for our children, is much slower to evolve than machine intelligence but more conservative and much safer than machine intelligence. Machine intelligence can be an aid in human biological evolution but should never be the sole area of advancing evolution.  Machine intelligence could one day dominate human life with amoral nonhuman values, if we don't carefully see that it does not.

And finally, human civilizations evolved mainly by way of the bonding ethics of group-selection or ethnic-selection and this remains deeply within human nature. Any future evolution will need to work with human nature in developing political philosophy, that is, not against human nature, such as developing, legally, an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. That is, a world of thousands of small states, or ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, and guided in material evolution toward Godhood by religion (theological materialism) and science. Then we may realistically have a better way, and more incentive, to solve the primary problems of climate change, population growth, and species extinction.