On the subject of survival of the fittest, a hypothetical:
If the human race decided that to alleviate the problem of overpopulation they would allow only 1 in so many [a hundred, a thousand] the ability to reproduce, how would you prefer that minority chosen?
Randomly? A lottery?
Or would, considering you had a vote in the matter, that the matter had a democratic slant, you vote that those who represented the highest rankings according to a set of fittness tests worthy of breeding?
Everyone would have the same rights to influence the development of the meager smattering of children. These children would have many parents other than their biological ones.
The interests of diversity - musical talent, intelligence, athletic ability - all forms of creativity and excellence, according to a standard decided and accepted by all- would have representation in this model.
In such a situation, do those who exhibit the most productive, successful traits among us have more of a right to pass on their genetics than those who have thrived weakly, perhaps only by way of the buttresses of civilization?
In the face of such a winnowing, would you want an obscenely obsese, television addict, beauty dereft, essentially thoughtless trailer park denizen to have the same chance to pass on their DNA as an Einstein?
I smell a speculative fiction plot… sounds elitist, however, I would like to hear an arguement against “the breeding of the fittest”. Such a solution would seem like the killing of potential children, yet it would help to ensure the survival of the human race on a whole, so it would save those same children from the apparently doomed fate they would meet had they the chance to live.