> What you'll have are people who argue that if people who aren't as intelligent, or as strong, or as funny just had access to the same set of circumstances as

> What you'll have are people who argue that if people who aren't as intelligent, or as strong, or as funny just had access to the same set of circumstances as Intelligent Person X, Strong Person Y, and Funny Person Z, the "underperforming" - for lack of a better adjective - people would be just as good. No, that's not really what most of them are arguing. What most of them are arguing is that we should try to minimize the detrimental effect of the environment and maximize access to enrichment to maximize our "return" on whatever heritable potential we have. We know phenotype is always a mix of heritable traits and environment. Development is guided by genetics but it is an embodied process. If the environment is shitty, which it is for a great many people, then that's an obvious place to look if said group is under-performing. If a group of people are being constantly told they're inferior or treated worse than others, that's another obvious place to look... especially since we have research on "social self-limitation" that demonstrates that humans will to some extent perform to expectation whether the expectation is high or low. Improving the environment is the low-hanging fruit. Only then does it make sense to look at heritable traits. By then we might have a better understanding of our own genetics and more precise tools than CRISPR-CAS9.