I've heard that humanity has reached an evolutionary plateau. Since we have marginalized many of the natural threats which would cull the population of those lacking athleticism or ingenuity, those traits are not being concentrated in the gene pool. Which is as it ought to be, really. I don't see any advantage in going back to a more primitive and savage society. I also don't want to have some rehash of the Lynchburg Colony, or other depraved eugenics experiments.
Since our moral framework, rightly, won't allow us to spur change--and it's debatable whether the changes encouraged by a harsher world would even be helpful to the kind of society we're accustomed to--is humanity destined to stagnate? Was "Idiocracy" more than just a farce? I look forward to a day when it will be a trivial matter for a doctor to look at the genes of a parent, identify potential congenital problems, and correct them in the next generation. If a family line is predisposed to Multiple Sclerosis, or bone cancer, a treatment could be applied to prevent the problem before it even starts.
In this imaginary world, I would hope regulations would be strictly upheld, to prevent tampering in the genes of future offspring for vanity, or to prevent homosexuality, or curly hair, or other acceptable variations on the human prototype. It wouldn't be bad, though, if things like intelligence could be enhanced where a deficiency is anticipated, or if disabilities could be corrected genetically.
Is this morally OK? Is this scientifically plausible? Compensating for the loss of external factors in the development of the human species?