>If genetics can be conclusively shown to determine intelligence how long before someone tries to build a 'master race'?

>That's what makes me uncomfortable.

"It's undeniably true, but it makes me feel uncomfortable, so let's ban it and lock it away so it can never make me uncomfortable again"

It's more 'lets not research it too much further so no-one tries to exterminate an entire race again, only this time with scientific justification'.

What scientific justification?

"Well, because Chimpanzees are less intelligent than humans, they don't deserve to live, so we can exterminate them."??

That's so obviously bullshit it barely even warrants discussion. Inferiority of a species or even individual does not provide any justification for destroying that species/race/individual.

People will value more a life of a human than one of a chimp, and chimps only survive on natural reserves or zoos. That's the fate people who aren't genetically engineered to be smart will face, if they survive.

Don't worry, madmen rarely require real justification.

In the us and many places, you have to take tests to have a good life. Only smart or priviledged people pass them. Whats the difference between a master class and a master race

Which intelligence test do you have to pass to have a good life? I am not aware of such a test, unless you believe that, to have a good life, you must make a lot of money, which requires passing some exams. Which would be a simple-minded and sad world view.

> Whats the difference between a master class and a master race

In the US and many places, with hard work and determination you can change your class. You can't however change your race.

That's the difference.

I think newtem0's point is exactly the opposite: regardless of how hard you work or how determined you are, your maximum intelligence comes down to genetics, which is something that you can't change currently.

Maximum intelligence yes. But you don't need maximum intelligence to improve your station in life.

Or, in my opinion much more likely, uses it as an excuse for denying resources to classes of people.

Is it your opinion that it is better to spend resources in ignorance, possibly harming, helping, or doing nothing, than to allocate them meaningfully with full knowledge?

No, of course not. Your implication that this knowledge of genetics could somehow help allocate resources provides a very clear example of my concern. While you may be thoughtful and evenhanded, many people in power are thoughtless and greedy. Others still are racist and sexist.

You haven't demonstrated at all why ignorance will stop people from being racist or sexist or thoughtless, so you haven't made the case you seem to think you have.