Understanding evolution can be done, simply. you don't need mounds of evidence to convince someone if you explain it just right. (Though there are mounds ).

Animals face conflict. Conflict challenges animals. Animals with traits that overcome conflict survive, others are picked off. Remaining animals reproduce. (Repeat)

Safe Neo-European countries of today face no conflict. There is no incentive for natural selection to do what it does. There are no more mass diseases (not mass enough.) that challenge us. There are no predators that challenge us (Seen any bears mauling people in the streets lately?). There is no starvation occurring in our cities (I cant say this for everyone.. it still happens in some places. no way around that).

Because of this LACK of natural selection, the traits that are more dominant... are the traits that are the most numerous. (AKA Whoever shags the most gets #1 prize for most genes spread). This is not for the better!

Can we carve.. somehow, our own eugenics? Can we be our own natural selection? For the sake of the Quality of humanity... it should be done. Obviously this ideology faces an incredible moral dilemma: How to do it, and how to do it ethically.

(This may be non-serious discussion.. but i like to entertain the idea.)

http://www.staredit.net/topic/4388/0/

I wouldn't really expect you to realize that that topic existed except for the fact that you posted in it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the general rule around here is to continue the old topic if you aren't presenting a significantly different question or argument.

please forgive me for not remembering a topic that i posted in.. almost half a year ago.

There have been many Religion/Evolution topics that wash back up on the shore every now and then, why not eugenics?

Nerdy, Midget_man's right. Dapperdan closed a certain topic of mine but allowed me to remake it with the exact same first post (which was rather lengthy).

Of course, some evolution's going on everywhere - women have more children with smarter/morehandsome/stronger men and vice versa. However, it is indeed rather slower then usual, so I'm in favor of forced eugenics (this stems, of course, from my... err... egoism, I guess).

At some point, our scientific knowledge would pass the threshold for how long you have to study to advance, so we need to either evolve to be able to learn faster or create robots to do the science for us, which always creates the possibility for a robot revolution (NO U). At this rate, I think that this threshold could actually be in maybe a hundred years and if it keeps up at that rate it'll be impossible to evolve rapidly enough. So, yes, forced eugenics (which could admittedly lead to different classes in society, with a super-smart and pretty much unevolved or even devolved class). Just pairing people together won't be enough in the long run, you'll also probably have to do some artificial modification, which should at some point be possible. It would, of course, be a repressive society, but that's the price of brilliance as a species, I think.

Now, these are just my ideas, not a solid proof of anything.