What, if anything, should be done to address the issue that the

Nothing should be done about it except what has been done.(at least in most Western societies).

You give everyone a chance(e.g equality of opportunity), so as to make sure that the people who actually excel do so by ability and merit, and not by any unjust means.

>>8612195

But a tremendous amount of people will never be able to succeed in any non-trivial activity no matter how much they try and regardless of the resources made available to them because they had the misfortune of being born with a low IQ.

Should we not attempt to enhance their intelligence in some way; or at least try to prevent the birth of those who would be burdened with very limited intellectual capacity?

>>8612201
>But a tremendous amount of people will never be able to succeed in any non-trivial activity no matter how much they try and regardless of the resources made available to them because they had the misfortune of being born with a low IQ.

And? We live in a social hierarchy based on dominance.

Some people are on the top, and others are not. That doesn't mean that the people on the bottom are axiomatically worthless, because they usually have jobs that are useful for society in general, such as garbage collecting or whatever.

>>8612207

But with inexorably increasing automation, what will those people have to do 20 years from now?

Will they not become a permanent underclass; a massive and growing perpetual burden on the rest of society?

>>8612201
No, fuck that. STEM is already competitive enough without a bajillion crispr baby prodigies flooding the market. Confirmed for undergrad.

>>8612201

>Should we not attempt to enhance their intelligence in some way

They can by studying. Its up to them

>or at least try to prevent the birth of those who would be burdened with very limited intellectual capacity

This is sci.

But I heard these guys really believe all of that IQ demagogy.

>>>/pol/

>>8612214
They would only be a burden in a society where all automation and it's profits are monopolized into the hands of few people.

Which might happen, but I don't think it will(it hasn't happened historically, because people have always find something else to do).

>>8612227

In what way is it not burdensome to have a large group of people who will produce nothing, but demand the right to consume?

>>8612235
Considering the fact that consumption is what drives an economy, I don't see a problem.

And conversely, what exactly do the owners of the supposed machinery produce? Essentially nothing, they're just Fallout-tier Overseers who reap all the benefits.