I mean the vast majority of studies indicate environmental factors like access to healthy food, a strong family, educational opportunities, and the literal environment are what drives difference in outcomes, not "genetic inferiority".
Maybe someone from a lower (poorer) caste was raised on a diet of food grown in polluted/ tainted fields, grew up with poor air quality, and their water comes through lead pipes or other means that permanently hinder their potential.
You're arguing pure eugenics and apparently find it funny.
I'm not arguing for or against anything. I asked "what if X" and you responded "not X, also you're a bad person."
My argument was not "we should strive for equality of outcome, even if it means eugenics!" but rather to point out that it is an absurd goal.
As for my amusement, it was at this person (I can't remember the name) expressing a hope that outcomes are due to genetics, because he saw this as the optimal situation (due to the inevitable progress of technology), rather than hopeless as most people do.
Also just to be perfectly clear, I am not rejecting the role of environment. I am just also not rejecting the role of genetics. If genetics really didn't matter, differences in outcome between me and a banana would be purely environmental.
Maybe someone from a lower (poorer) caste was raised on a diet of food grown in polluted/ tainted fields, grew up with poor air quality, and their water comes through lead pipes or other means that permanently hinder their potential.
You're arguing pure eugenics and apparently find it funny.