> The main point of equality it to allow a brilliant child of a not so brilliant parents to bring as much value to society as he can. If a very bright kid is born in a farmer's family, we want he/she to become a top member of the society and work on the hard to solve problems, and not become a KFC store manager.

As pointed out elsewhere, the problem with that is education. The school system provides a very poor excuse for "education", and if the parents don't supplement that (as well-educated parents likely will), that naturally hampers the bright-child-in-a-poor-family example.

There are exceptions of course, there will always be - but to solve the problem at a larger scale, what must be solved is the education problem. At the moment, 90+% of "education" must still be provided by the parents. Educated people understand that the school system is a parody of education, and so tend to compensate for that. But how can uneducated people understand that and compensate for it?

I agree what is taught in school is very poor and lacking. I hope he current system is a least a gateway for most people: once you start understanding that you need more education, you can look for yourself how to get this education. Then comes to play libraries, grants, online resources etc. Not everyone has a chance to access all the resources he/she needs, but at least middle class and slighty lower classes should have a chance.

To be clear, there will always be a gap between child with clever/well educated parents and other childs, and I don't think we should lower the top level. I just think we need a eay to push people who might be stuck at the bottom level while they could go much higher.

Do you feel this way from a societal, "consequentialist" point of view, meaning that doing such would necessarily maximize the quality of society on the whole? If so, what if there is an opportunity cost by which such a moral choice stimies your next cancer cure or breakthrough in clean energy?

Or perhaps, instead, do you feel that the overall effect on society is not as important as the individual's "right" to maximize his or her own opportunity? And if so, what about some other individual's right to choose the best available mate?

Or is there a third way?

Thank you for the response.

Although the authors of the article leave a bit of room for attributing a lack of upward mobility to circumstantial disadvantage, you seem to be operating from an almost eugenicist point-of-view with the assumption that position is almost entirely based on inherited ability.

Those studies don't prove anything but I believe that culture and circumstance play a large part in determining mobility.

The funny thing is that in ten or twenty years when artificial super-intelligence arrives, everyone, even rich intellectuals, will be, relatively speaking, mentally challenged, compared to the AIs. Please review this video to get a good idea of what I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_Juh7Xh_70 (Unless we augment our intelligence with implanted technology of some sort.)

I at no point advocated eugenics and I actually find that a bit insulting. I quoted the article directly which stated (as I quote again for the space-cadets among us):

"Such competence is potentially heritable and is reinforced by the human tendency to mate with partners of similar traits and ability."

I simply alluded to (and then later asked) my respondent to what extent he or she is willing to defend equality over an individual's rights. Please do not misrepresent my words. Maybe you should try staying on topic before pointing me to some far-off, yet to be encountered political dilemma? I also pointed out that despite our modern acceptance of evolution, the “enlightened” liberal-democratic west is in absolute cognitive dissonance when it comes to reconciling such theories with the various inequalities that arise between peoples. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your futuristic wizardry? I'm betting not...