I think you misunderstand the complexity of what I said. Who said the survival of the human genome was my highest good. The highest good is for the entire environment to survive. Humanity cannot survive without the environment.

You said, "Shouldn't we outlaw the woman's right to choose to not have kids and force everyone to reproduce and make as many humans as possible because the best way to guarantee that some always survive, is to make as many as we can?"

That is complete nonsense, and you know it. The more humans there are, the more stress there is on the planet, and as the planet is endangered, more people die.

You said, " But isn't it better to overpopulate and allow the weak to die off in wars so that the best "survivors" will be passing on their genes to create the strongest version of "human" possible in order to maximise the odds of the human race surviving?"

I believe I covered the topic of war.

You said, "I don't suspect that many of the logical outcomes for the morality you picked is a world you actually want to live in."

No, I wouldn't. We would be living in a co-operative world, where everybody has reached a mutual agreement because all the factors have been ironed out and understood. A society that works together towards the same goals is far more likely to be living optimally than one that isn't.

"You said, "I think morality and right and wrong is more complex an issue than you want it to be."

And I find you 10 points behind what I am saying - all the time.