Following is a test. Is this argument outrageous? Yes / No
Here in southern California (where else?), we were home to what was often called the 'Nobel Sperm Bank' (actually called the Repository for Germinal Choice). It's founder, Robert Graham liked to broadcast his motto "The more intelligent you are, the more children you should have."
This kind of thinking bothers some people. The concept of 'survival of the fittest' shouldn't apply to humans, some say. We should spare no expense to keep even vegetative humans living
So now the potential for very long lives confronts us in an already crowded world. When the quality of life drops even lower for the masses of humanity and hunger & disease take millions of lives daily, someone will have to decide. Who should live? Who should die? Will money decide? Will intelligence? Will it be those who best serve the predominant power structure? Will it be decided by our robot overlords? If logic prevails over emotion, we will reinstate survival of the fittest and offer a respectful goodbye to the rest.