I've argued for none of the nasty things you think.

I am not arguing for a caste system or eugenics. I believe in meritocracy. I believe, though, that people are shaped by their genes to some extent. It is not the whole of the person but there is an effect. Why does this matter? Well, over time I think family functioning evolves to maximize member success based on predispositions. What does that mean? Well, I think of my brother in laws family. They are a quiet reserved people who are very religious. My brother in law is not religious but he fills that deep psychological need in other ways. They know how to deal with each other and give each other advice and guidance that works for them. My family, on the other hand, is loud and gregarious and we need to be busy all of the time. We have our own mechanisms for support and success that work very well for us. They are not very mutually compatible. If we swapped children there would be considerable friction and they would not be as successful as they would be in their native habitat. Is some of this behavior learned? Of course. Is some of it genetic? Definitely. Is either family 'better' or 'superior'? No. Just different. As things stand now our respective families build on our strengths. This type of diversity is important for our species.

I certainly applaud people who choose to adopt as I think this is a great way to pass on 'family intelligence'.

I think overpopulation is a solvable problem and not nearly the size of issue it is made out to be. I certainly don't want people with a demonstrated successful approach to life to eschew bringing their brand of life into the world and nurturing it. People as a whole are not going to stop breeding and the only way to solve the problems that overpopulation brings along with our other problems are capable human minds.

The caste system is overly rigid to be useful. It is disgusting, I agree, because it wastes human potential. But that doesn't mean that what a person learns from their family and heritage is not important, just not all important. There is a big distinction there.

And I do thing that knowledge and technology are important. But not all important. Again, there is a big distinction.

And I never said children are everyone's 'greatest accomplishment'. That's silly. I am saying that focusing on the now and chasing ephemeral success and ignoring what will last beyond one's own short life might be a short term winner but a long term loser. Jonas Salk's children might not cure any global diseases but what about their children? What about their children's children? What about 500 years from now? Can you say that some predisposition that is passed on from Salk's genes or familial values will not influence his progeny to make the world an even better place? Direct impact is deeply important but it can't exist without existence. Where do you think the Jonas Salks of this world come from?

You seem to think that having children keeps people from making an impact. It absolutely does not. It is a false dichotomy. That is what I am trying to get across. It is like working 18 hours a day to get something done -- in the short term you might accomplish your goal, but how many times is getting something done in a month that you could've done in three really going to make a huge difference when considering the long term price you pay? Do you know what is even more rare than doers? People who do for the long term because that means thinking about the long term. All too rare. And the lack of that perspective means that people who do think for the long term are discounted. Having kids? Oh jeez, now that person is useless. Its a poisonous idea that affects far more than the person spending their life like it was a stolen credit card.