I accept that he doesn't talk *much* about breeding fitter children - he does mention it sometimes, and his sci fi heroes, Heinlein and Herbert, also discuss it at length in their books. So I don't think its absurd, I think its there. And I think there is a clear genetic essentialism there - all the talk of gene pools etc. ita a fluid meritocratic sort of genetic essentialism, where the smartest of different racial or class groups join a sort of super league in california.

But leary is not massively interested in children, as far as i can see - he is more about personal liberation, and may be more interested in things like cloning, genetic modification, that sort of 'new eugenics'.

Eugenics means interventions to steer evolution and improve the quality of the human species.

ive added in a response from RU Sirius, who makes some of the same points as you - this is sci-fi, tongue in cheek, etc. all of which i appreciate, although i personally still find these books pretty weird. im interpreting them as part of a longer history, and i think it makes sense to place them within this longer context. i dont have a problem with elitism - i just dont think leary was a genius. but i guess what one can say, and perhaps i should say it clearer, is that in these books he was advocating something that was totlaly far out at the time, but is fairly standard fare for silicon valley beliefs now!

thanks for the argument! keeps me honest . more to come on this topic so i look forward to more debate.

Jules