[catchclose8919]

It's eugenics when you force it. It's social engineering when you alter the incentives/rewards landscape to get better outcomes. And it's... evolution when nature does it anyway.

Just labeling it as generically "bad" and charicaturising it in a way that bundles it with other despicable tendencies like maybe racism brings no insight to the discussion. Only muddies the waters and makes the whole discussion stupider.

[jtbayly]

> It's eugenics when you force it.

No. Let's take a look at the first two definitions that popped up in my search:

> a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.

Those judged to be superior in this case being those in "healthy" societies.

> The study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.

You described a method whereby your goal was to arrange reproduction (birth control to one group, child support to another group), based on their characteristics, on the assumption that those characteristics are heritable. You are simply advocating eugenics. Yes, the theory is based on the theory of evolution. No, most people don't even think it works anymore, whether forced, voluntary, or otherwise.