Yes, and that would likely cause American productivity and wealth to be lower than it is in reality.

That's true, but I'm not sure what your point is here. How is different selection pressure related to the idea that environmental factors also influence outcomes? It's not as if everyone could evolve to perfectly overcome their local environmental challenges and have the same outcomes as everyone else.

Suppose you introduced the diseases after the US had already been settled, say in 1800?

That is completely true, and I forgot about it. There are other parasites in Africa, but probably none as important as the mosquito-carried group. Thanks for correcting me.

I still think there are other arguments to be made to the same end. A lot of historical contigency was needed to make this particular world. Even the biggest plausible inter-group variation claimed by HBD isn't big enough to overcome that and overdetermine outcomes.

If HBD is true, then all the existing correlational and longitudinal evidence immediately implies that group differences are the major reason why per capita income in the USA are 3-190x per capita income in Africa, that group differences are a major driver of history and the future, that intelligence has enormous spillovers totally ignored in all current analyses

I think you overstate the case. HBD being true would mean the differences between human groups are large enough to be important for all kinds of things. But it doesn't have to mean that these differences are so large that they swamp every other difference! There are plenty of other, undisputed differences between human groups, which are either non-biologically heritable, or are part of their geographical environment, that could contribute to or outright cause huge disparities between the US and Africa.

As just one example, if you took the African climate, and the sub-Saharan African prevalence of human disease and parasites, and introduced it to the US in a counterfactual past, I expect US average incomes would be much lower. There are many other examples and arguments I could bring here, but I'm pretty sure you can think of them yourself.

Differences in outcomes between groups in the US, or in the EU, are a much better case than the US vs. Africa or vs. China.

What are your criteria for good foreign policy choices then? You have conveyed that you want Iraq to be occupied, but Libya to be neglected, so non-intervention clearly is not the standard.

My current best guess is 'whatever promotes maximum stability'. Also, how do you expect these decisions are currently made?

No. Efforts at "diversity in tech" could still lead to a more optimal match of skills to jobs.

HBD does not deny that there may be biases limiting the hiring of quality of applicants, it would just deny that differential outcomes are prima facie evidence of such biases.

It's further back the pipeline than hiring - there just aren't very many black programmers - so trying to solve the problem at the hiring stage is solving the wrong problem.

What's your evidence that disease burden was substantially different in Africa, as a whole, than anywhere else prior to industrialization?

This is not a controversial point. Warmer and tropical climates have always had higher parasite and disease loads than colder ones. If you disagree with basic stuff like this, the burden is on you.

As compared to what alternative? There is no success condition for large scale ground operations in the region. If the criticism of the current administration is "failed to correct the lack of strategic acumen in the Pentagon" then I would agree, but I wonder what basis we have for expecting an improvement.

It seems to me we can identify problems, but have no available solutions to implement.