This is a ridiculously simplistic take, and leads to some very nasty eugenic lines of thought.
Yup.
However, there is a mirror problem of this, and unfortunately it is less theoretical than being merely lead to, its already there.
The definition of eugenics is to apply principles of selective breeding (which are a practice developed by farmers since prehistory, and taken to the next level by modern biological science) with an aim of spreading desirable and curbing undesirable traits in said population.
You could also separate a kind of incidental eugenics, which are policies designed to do something not related to such long term demographic planning, but something far more down to earth, yet incidentally achieving an eugenic effect.
Denmark's Down Syndrome elimination is a good example of "incidental" eugenics:
Down syndrome elimination in Denmark is "Just another day at the office"
www.huffpost.com
Doesn't matter what the thinking, motivation, means and organization is behind the fact that the trait is being taken out of the gene pool, it is being taken out of the gene pool, that's what matters, and that's what achieves the eugenic effect. Everything else is fluff.
But then lets go back to the mirror version of eugenics - after all, if it is possible for certain policies to promote obviously positive traits in population (like, say, physical fitness, resilience, intelligence), or neutral traits (like, say, hair color), is there any reason why it would be impossible to promote negative ones in the same way?
The answer obviously is no, the science of biology does not make a valuation here, and such a phenomenon is called dysgenics.
But why would anyone want to do that? After all such idea combines the worst aspects of both eugenics and lack of eugenics, with no saving graces of either, one would have to be some kind of comic book grade supervillain to do this.
But then again, there were the incidental eugenics i've mentioned.
Can there also be incidental dysgenics?
Quite a few thinkers think that the modern setup of welfare state affecting economics, middle class lifestyle with its effect on fertility ratios, and some other minor factors are incidentally dysgenic.
Everyone abhors eugenics, on account of more and less tenuous connection with Third Reich's abuse of it, some expanding that thinking even to incidental eugenics, but why is no one outraged about incidental dysgenics even half as much?
The sentiment
@WolfBear seems to be expressing here is that perhaps we should consider those something abhorrent too.
Wisdom is more important than intelligence. Both is better, of course, and you still do want a fair chunk of intelligence, but wisdom is definitely a higher priority.
Wisdom needs to be developed. Not just in a theoretical, educational setting, but also by creating a relevant system that sets examples. For example, the justice systems that have, over centuries, turned Europe from Dark Age barbarian lands to the kind of societies where even the poorer and less intelligent parts of society don't commit many crimes, were radically enthusiastic about the feature of
making examples of criminals. Which let's be honest, is the exact opposite of how any remotely left wing politician these days wants to deal with criminals.