To quote Emile Zola, whatever you bury will gather strength and destroy everything in its way once it explodes. Ain't it the truth. I always called it the Jack in the Box effect. It applies to a lot.

"Out of the 100+ books I’ve summarized, this one has the widest socio-political consequences."

I like this but you might want to consider a 101th book. I look at things a bit differently. I phrase it perhaps a bit verbosely as: describing "how humans can survive and develop long term by genetic and strategic adaptation to the new ecology we have developed to replace the hunter gatherer ecology we left for the farms and cities of civilization". That new ecology is civilization, and it is now our basic life support system, so I work to figure out how to adapt to it and protect it. It helps to look at it in terms of ecology, because there are only a couple of them and all the many adaptations and hominid varieties are dealing with the same problems. It limits the problem of describing human strategy and adaptation.

Now there are a lot of points you make here that I might contest. In my book, When Barbara Explained Genius, I talk about how to develop intelligence, such as techniques for converting insight into something that can be retained and communicated. I need to update that to add how to actually increase intelligence.

As for the genetics, I'm glad you mention the gene bank. I assume you mean the UK one. They are just starting to notice a genetic effect I noticed about 50 years ago. They are calling it a Public Health Threat. In my study of how humans could adapt to the new ecology genetically, I called it the most important genetic factor in human survival. It is that what we call human progress is the removal of natural selection. No species can survive that. The genetic load will destroy us and as mentioned, they are noticing this in the UK. See Professor Caroline Wright: Revisiting genetic determinism: evidence from large population cohorts June 5, 2024

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uc7bpB5QVk

Anyway, to make it short, we have to replace natural selection that we have removed (especially with medicine and that parents are older so there are more broken genes per generation) so I wrote how to ethically and economically replace it using artificial selection. Among all kinds of other things, it points out that natural selection can only select against "bad" genes, but artificial selection could "select for" the best genes of both parents. Everyone coulld ahve good health, beauty and brains. I mention what we would call a minimum IQ of 100. And then there is the economic value of it... And then it gets interesting... If you are interested, look for Genetics For A New Human Ecology (Transition)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1544900996

I will rewrite is some after I finish what I am working on now which is the "Strategy For A New Human Ecology" book. "This is the human operating system. All the rest is just applications."