There seems to be an obvious moral problem with this, similar to original eugenics, but instead of limiting the number of children of the "unfit" this wants to relatively increase the number of children of the "fit". It won't work for a technical reason (de novo mutations that happen every generation) but there is a way to avoid both problems.

My book, Genetics For A New Human Ecology is about that. The problem is that what we have called human progress is the removal of natural selection. No species can survive that. Natural Selection (especially disease) is supposed to remove the (problem) de novo mutations (genetic screwups) that happen every generation. This is especially true when we have older parents (with smaller families) that have more accumulated genetic problems in their sex cells. Besides we need to adapt to a new ecology (that follows the hunter-gatherer one) that will be very demanding.

So do pre-natal artificial selection, as these folks suggest, but it's not about the elite. Everyone that uses DNA to reproduce will need it and generation, by generation, each "family" can accumulate the "more fit" genes from both parents - something that evolution cannot do. It would be economical and it would be ethical since it would be about healthy children for everyone. Not only would you not need a larger population, but with healthier children, you could still ensure survival with a smaller family. Everyone's boat would float up together. It's best that way, because there are many people that are not genetically gifted and wonder if there is a future for them or their children. This offers it to them and we need that because we need everyone invested in the future of humanit.y

It's not a long read and you might find it interesting - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544900996