I myself defend a kind of Aristotelian individualism. I hold that the purpose of life is the actualization of our individual potentialities for excellence. In terms of politics, a well-ordered society should encourage individual self-actualization and excellence, as long as it does not undermine the common good of society.
Greg Johnson essay.
What I found most interesting:
I agree wholeheartedly, as long as we understand that this refers to proximate interests. Genetic continuity/expansion/improvement can be considered the ultimate purpose. Note that in contrast to those who misunderstand Salter, there is no inconsistency between “genetic continuity” and “genetic improvement” – a point I’ve discussed in detail elsewhere. Absolute perfect genetic continuity is impossible for humans anyway, with genetic drift, genetic shuffling in meiosis, selective pressures, etc. Some change will occur and eugenics can be part of that. However, these are changes to the same overall genepool, changes that may alter the frequency of certain alleles, but changes that still maintain the distinctiveness of the genepool compared to that of other peoples.
One can look at, for example, ancient European genomes. These are somewhat different from that of modern Europeans, but are still European, and still more similar to modern Europeans than they are to other genepools.