Okay. It doesn't need to be complete. In fact, completion might be an impossibility. However, it SHOULD do its best to account for as much reality as possible, shouldn't it? Especially realities that have a concrete effect on everyday life?
Traditionally defined intelligence is important. It is without a doubt ONE OF central issues. But I don't think you can disentangle it from the other central issues, which are somewhat harder to define. The problem of raw stupidity is a very visible, easily understood one. The irony, is that the proposed solutions attract mostly sub-sub-geniuses.
Consider something for a moment. There have been many small scale societies on this planet that haven't exhibited the same trends as ours (endless expansion, the reduction of everything to a purely economic level). These societies are often composed of people of very low IQ. Think Kalahari(sp?) Bushmen, or the denizens of the rain-forrests in South America. These are small, nearly static, stable socieites. But they can't count past five, in some cases. Real stupid, right? Thing is, there must be SOMETHING about their psyche which prevents them from shitting all over their surroundings.
Your Culling programs have nothing to account for such an intangibility, however, and these people would be wiped out along with everyone else.
I anticipate that the reactionary response to my statement is going to be that I'm simply seeking to avoid reality and refusing to "go forward" because of some kind of kneejerk morality which has intervened in my thoughtprocess. Or that I'm afraid that I am not up to standards somehow, or perhaps (most laughable of all) that I don't want to lose the comfort of having a vast horde of drooling morons around to make sandwiches, clean toilets and pump gas for me.
This is not the case. I too believe in the establishment of a more elegant, powerful, goal-driven society; one which is less likely to collapse in on itself from internal decay and degenerate into crowd rule. I also think this is do-able. The reason why I refuse to step in line with regards to the Culling argument is simply that I don't think it moves us closer to that goal. In fact, I think it will end up diverting us. There are too many problems with the idea itself, not to mention the enormous practical difficulties - which would almost certainly cause the program to fail and the crowd to reassert itself even more powerfully than before.