Please rephrase this post in basic English.
EDIT: I will be nice today, but understand that most people have little interest or understanding in science. Become the first INTP the in history of the interest who learns to keep your posts to 250 words or less and speaks in concepts and general language when possible.
Humans have not been through a genetic bottleneck for tens of thousands of years, and the bottlebeck assumed to be cuased by the Toba eruption (c. 70,00 BCE) was meant to have wiped out a considerable amount of the total human population. You refute your own argument again by suggesting on the one hand, the level of genetic diversity is low enough that removing some disabled people will harm humanity as a whole, yet then mention that there are a number of different ways in which mutations can occur in any given individual.
I want to take a real life example to prove my point that you are not thinking very practically, as well. Look at the current Ebola outbreak. Even if I granted you all the points you have made in the thread, the number of inidviduals who would be resistent to the virus in any given population would be low enough that (untreated) in the worst case scenario of a global pandemic, if they were to survive, a substantial amount of the population would be eredicated. Therefore the diversity would actually be lowered due to the oubreak casuing a severe bottleneck and proceeding too rapidly for useful mutations to spread through the population (which takes many generations).
This is why modern medicine is needed. And medicine effectively "masks" the need for mutation to some extent.
You can try and bamboozle people with statistics, but your arguments are divorced from the daily reality. This is typical Ti thinking.
I think you are being intentionally ignorant. Other people understood. You either did not, or won't admit that you did. I told you about facts, and you say these facts are divorced from reality.
It's simple. The genetic strength is the genetic diversity of the population. I am using very simple math. Other people got it. Why can't you? One of the others (@jscrothers ) even spelled it out to you in grade school language.
Ebola (so far) effected only thousands of people, and it was fairly random in the traits aimed at (only geography). 2000<30000 (I hope grade school math isn't too complicated for you). You said 10% of the population aiming specifically at reducing diversity. (700000000>3000) Unless you are backtracking now about what you meant. There is a huge difference.
[MENTION=22098]Jarlaxle[/MENTION] made the point that the advances made to support our diversity are also a form of strength. It is not a "mask", the things we invent are assets. Without the medical technology, but with the other things, like plane travel, and these things, the Ebola problem would be much worse.
This isn't the first potential pandemic that our "mask" of medical technology has curbed. We kinda have one every few year (bird flu, swine flu, ...). It is our ability to support the diversity through the understanding we've gained that we have that allows us to combat these things.
Eugenics (at the 10% rate that you proposed) would be a creation of very own man made bottleneck.
Don't get me wrong. I am all for transhumanism, gene therapy, etc. But a centrally planned, mass genocide of 10% of the population based on some hypothetically deep understanding of what we believe is good vs. bad? No. Or as [MENTION=921]lowtech redneck[/MENTION] said, hell no.