I didn't mean to be rude to economists. I actually like them and their field quite a lot. I compared it to the eugenics program because - Most (not enough) pe

I didn't mean to be rude to economists. I actually like them and their field quite a lot. I compared it to the eugenics program because - Most (not enough) people today have become aghast at it. - Its biological underpinnings are actually quite sound. Intelligence has a genetic component. So does aggression. They also have a strong social component. However, eugenics is fundamentally a social theory, arriving at social conclusions. It is not a scientific theory, arriving at scientific conclusions (that would be biology and the theory of evolution) - Opposition to it at the time was large and strong (the T4 program driven underground by religious opposition; the US' program, which survived well into the 70s, was very low key). However, while opposition to a social theory was based on moral and social grounds, ignorance of largely irrelevant scientific points was used to deny standing. I feel that the OP's Turing test, while interesting and important, ultimately denies standing to most Americans. Therefore, it must be treated with caution.