Please keep in mind that readers/listeners have a difficult time distinguishing between malignant 'bad faith' and honest, innocent ignorance. In a better world people tend to extend good faith to speakers — giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt about problematic statements — but unfortunately the modern world has weaponized willful ignorance to such an extent that benefit-of-the-doubt is given sparingly, if at all. The onus is now on the writer to be clear in his speech.
I'm making this point specifically about this part of your question:
The manifestation of race based differences are due to the different
genes in people and the environment they grew up in. Taking the idea
of affirmative action to the logical extreme, wouldn't society in the
future have AA based on literally what genes a person has? This seems
a bit absurd to me.
On this track, would we be compromising the quality of the candidates
in the upper position as in attempts to give equivalent gene
reservation (sic), wouldn't we push those with worser genes (chance for
disease, lower cognitive ability) into upper position.
Now, we could write this off as simple misunderstanding of the sciences involved and spend some time in an answer correcting the assumptions implicit in this question: e.g., the assumption that race can predict quality of performance, and thus that AA would automatically push inferior candidates into upper positions. But in the real world this assumption has been stated and refuted so extensively over the last hundred years or so, by so many disparate individuals, that it's difficult to believe there is good faith behind yet another restatement. I mean, one of the following must be true:
- You make such statements in complete innocence, which means you've done literally no investigation or research, but are merely parroting the 'common knowledge' of some particular, parochial community, or...
- You are informed an aware of the many arguments that have refuted this position, but choose to avoid them because they don't fit well within your given worldview, or...
- You are informed an aware of the many arguments that have refuted this position, can understand and process them, but actively ignore them because they conflict with a social or political agenda that is important to you.
None of us know which of these three is true, none of us will ever know which of these three is true, and no statements you can make to the contrary will be believable. The mere act of making such frequently refuted assumptions (without acknowledgement of the refutations) damages your credibility. You may have intentions as pure as the driven snow for all we know, but that's between you and you on the inside of your skull. What we see is a recitation of some of the most problematic and pugnacious claims from centuries of dyed-in-the-wool white ethno-nationalism.
If you want us to treat you as a morally good author (°1), it becomes increasingly difficult to treat you as an intelligent author. If you want us to treat you as an intelligent author (°3), it becomes increasingly difficult to treat you as a morally good author. And the alternative in which we see you as presenting a basically decent but small-minded viewpoint (°2) isn't all that thrilling for anyone. Can you blame people for just wanting to be rid of this question?