There is no eugenics problem.
Some people think that eugenics might be necessary or desirable because there is no longer selection pressure on human populations in the form of, say, natural predators which would cull the human herd of the less fit. This is actually patently untrue, as we have plenty of human predators; in any case, to suggest that the same characteristics which make for a fit individual today, as opposed to the time in human history when we were in fact a prey species, is ludicrous.
Who is more likely to father many children, a man with a strong and beautiful body or a clever man with a whole bunch of money? The man with plentiful resources to devote to the rearing of offspring is the more attractive mate. Here is where the e-word comes in. Why do so many people seem to think that the human gene pool is in peril? Some say that stupid folks are having too many kids, while smarter people tend to prefer smaller families, and, therefore, the idiots are outbreeding the bright. This may in fact be true, and it raises another interesting point: animals in different survival situations use different breeding strategies. Some animals have only one or two offspring which are carefully protected and exhaustively nurtured. Other animals have large litters, which are less carefully tended, but of which one or two tend to survive through sheer force of numbers. Sound familiar? In any case, the "problem" of the overbreeding of the stupid has its roots not in biology, but in politics, to wit:
The unfit no longer have to bear the economic burden of their own offspring because of the welfare state.*
It is not necessary to use draconian government restrictions on fertility to control population. Just stop subsidizing stupid decisions.
*Note that I am not saying that all poor people are stupid, but that most stupid people are poor.
Lometa: Guilty as charged. I was being United States-centric. However, I still do not think that anything like what is called eugenics ought to be practiced on any level of organization larger than a family. Nor do I accept your assertion that anything like eugenics is necessary to control the size of the population. It is already well documented that global population growth is at below-replacement levels, and that the global population will level out and then begin declining within the next 30 years, if current trends continue. There is currently less land under cultivation than there was 50 years ago, but due to advances in agricultural technology, enough food is still produced to feed the entire world. Whether the hungry eat is no longer a matter of agriculture, but of politics. In any case, I am a radical optimist. Don't bother me with problems that won't materialize until 20 years from now! By then, we will all be creatures of pure light and energy!