Affirmative action is motivated by either an absolute belief in diversity being good (e.g., there are benefits for economic minorities that apply ragardless of race), and/or as an intervention meant to correct for structural violence in recent history.

The racial question is irrelevant to either of those issues.

> Let it influence immigration policy? Let it inform crime policy?

Immigration and crime policy written under the belief that some races are genetically superior to others...

Didn't I ask for examples that aren't fucking evil?

In any case, EVEN IF there is a correlation (after controlling for the hundred of obvious things and god knows what else), other factors (including variation that race doesn't explain and environmental factors) are so extraordinarily dominant that racial variation is more an excuse for racist bullshit than an objective justification for it.

Which is exactly why we don't even need to know the answer to the question.

> Treating people like individuals ought to be considered non-evil but belief in racial equality leads to people NOT being treated like individuals.

I have no idea what this means.

WRT affirmative action this is barely an intelligible position, because anyone with half a brain will realize that there are massive environmental factors that definitely dominate any difficult-to-even-validate racial causation.

WRT crime and immigration policy: writing either informed by a barely statistically significant correlation that's probably impossible to even actually prove because of thousands/millions of latent variables is pretty fucking far from treating people like individuals. Especially when that "science" conveniently validates white superiority theory.

You mean conducting eugenics experiments on low-income women?

Or did you mean encouraging only educated people to have children?

If you really think sterilizing and performing experiments on the poor without consent constitutes social progress... I don't really know what to say.

Anyways, it's a pretty far stretch to say that Singapore's eugenics program had anything at all to do with its economic performance over the past 50 years. More-over, the changes to reproductive rates in Singapore are pretty uniform throughout the population. So even if population control has helped Singapore, it was just the population control -- not the class-centered eugenics schemes.

And all of this is discounting the fact that it's not even effective when judged on its own terms... turns out governments don't make for very good PD controllers.

> with practically the entire economics profession

This is obviously not true. It is not the case that the majority of practicing ecnomists support eugenics...

Second, even if this were true, it would be irrelevant. Economists are not geneticists, biologists, anthropologists, etc. They are absolutely not trained to make the sort of assessments I'm talking about above.