We should engineer a woman who whose bones are made entirely of tooth enamel built from the inside out and can reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis by vaginal birth and whose clones will slowly outcompete the rest of humanity. Sometimes an advantageous trait comes with a costly trait because the more of one hard to evolve trait you have, the less of another hard to evolve trait you can evolve to have. If we reproduce asexually, there will be a much smaller tendency that the more of one hard to evolve trait you have, the less of another one you can evolve to have because there will be no genetic recombination and the mutation rate is so low. She should also be engineered so that no disease will spread and kill all of her clones but the only way for it not to kill them all is if the ability to survive the disease is not completely genetic. Because of the mutations that already occurred, after the disease wipes out some of them, there will be an ever so slight tendency for the ones who survived to have a genome that makes them more likely to survive the disease. The next disease that wipes some of them out will evolve them to be slightly more resistant to diseases. After enough time goes by, there will be more genetic diversity as a result of mutations so they won't evolve a trait that enables a disease to spread and wipe out all of them. Because they reproduce asexually, a person whose very resistant to any disease will also produce a kid whose very resistant to any disease and it will be possible to evolve extreme resistance to malaria without the risk of sickle cell anemia so people will evolve to have the mortality rate of malaria extremely low. In fact, there will even be frequency dependent selection for genetic variation speeding up the evolution of it because mutations that make somebody less likely to die from a disease by being different in the right way will be selected for because there will be so few people like her for a deadly disease to start in and spread to her from. Maybe it's easier to properly research how to make humanity not be destined for extinction on Earth by engineering many women whose clones will spread giving genetic diversity. Also because they reproduce asexually, it will be easier for them to evolve to not be so restrictive in what they do and still be ever so unlikely to break a bone with an ever so tiny costly trait coming with that trait. Old ladies will no longer have to fear that they're going to fall and break a bone. It's possible that they might even evolve to be able to survive on the rare occasion that somebody accidentally falls to the hard ground from 3 km high while climbing the poll because of asexual reproduction combined with tooth enamel bones. They'll probably also evolve to not get heat pain very easily because it's disadvantageous to be so restrictive that they don't get burnt very often because they can evolve to repair burn damage. They'll probably also evolve to be able to grow back a body part when ever they lose one so that they can be even less restrictive in their life, unless it's very rare for them to lose a body part in the first place because of the tooth enamel bones.
Another advantage in asexual reproduction is that fetuses would not evolve to reduce their own options and weaken the mother's immune system and make it so that the mother will be infected if the fetus dies, like at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjbgZwgdY7Q.
She should also be engineered to be a poikilotherm who can thrive in a wide range of core temperatures all the way down to freezing. Because that will be an easier trait to evolve, her clones will have the same trait instead of going extinct by genetic recombination to produce a kid who can't. Also, her clones will not evolve to thrive in a very narrow range of temperatures because it that would require more energy and that trait could come with an ever so small costly trait because of asexual reproduction. In addition to that, the core temperature could go as low as the skin temperature can go without harm so rather than constricting blood vessels in the cold to stop the core from cooling too much, the body would generate heat in below freezing whether and dilate blood vessels at the surface to prevent frostbite and the colder it was, the more heat the body would generate to keep the surface above freezing. They might also evolve to be extremely pale in the visible region to survive really high temperatures in the blasting sun by not heating up as much from it and pale in the infrared region to survive extremely low temperatures at night by burning less energy to stay above freezing because they don't emit as much radiation. As a result of being poikilotherms, the human species might even survive the freezing temperatures caused by the next asteroid that will cause a mass extinction. If some of them had stored enough body energy to survive a year without food after the next asteroid that causes a mass extinction, then each time one occurrs, people will evolve to store enough energy to be extremely unlikely to starve to death when a mass extinction occurrs. Maybe they'll even evolve to be so uneasily tireable which would be great. I once climbed the CN tower without once stopping to rest and I still didn't get tired which was great and it took 26:08. We can evolve to be better than that. That's because they'll sometimes have to go on really super long walks with no eating or stopping to rest during it because there exists a more advantageous way to react to the unpredictable environment that will give a more random distribution in when they eat and because of their parthenogenic reproduction, it will be possible for them to evolve to store so much energy in the first place for those walks and have an ever so small costly trait come with it. They won't be eating that often because they don't burn energy as fast because they don't need to be warm so the the longest walk they will do with no stopping to rest or eating will be really long. I'm against humans colonizing space because they would spread so rapidly until they can no longer spread and then there would be vicious competition and we would be so lucky not to have happened to be one of the people experiencing it because the number of people who would die in the competition would be such a high fraction of all humans who will ever exist. Lucilly, researchers might actually be able to stop humans from getting wiped out by a disaster. The sun is getting brighter through the course of its life so Earth will slowly get hotter and the amount of plant food will slowly decrease until there's none as long as we first give Earth more stable weather patterns by changing it's orbit to revolve around the sun the opposite way from Venus and have the slowest retrograde rotation that makes it face the same side to Venus every time it passes Venus (see https://www.quora.com/What-would-it-be-like-to-live-on-Venus/answer/Timothy-Bahry) so maybe the evolutionary stable size of the human population will be controlled by the amount of plant food and so will also slowly shrink with the amount of plant food until there's nobody left instead of suddenly becoming extinct from an asteroid and so few of the people who will ever exist will be sorry that humanity's not going to last that much longer that will occur before the sun runs out of fuel which is great. Venus should also be made to have an earth like atmosphere and revolve the opposite way from Earth while having the slowest retrograde rotation that makes it face the same side to Earth every time it passes Earth and to not be as close to the sun as it is which would trigger the runaway greenhouse effect again and humans should colonize it but make sure they do it right and have nobody inhabit it until a high fraction of the population all agrees to inhabit it because if only a few people inhabit it, there will be plenty of generations to select for people with a high fertility rate and then there will be vicious competition once the population is so big that it can no longer grow, unless we put a single asexually reproducing woman there who has already evolved resistance to any disease because she will be very slow to evolve to have a higher fertility rate.
They'll also evolve to be very nice and get along well because there will be no men to influence those women away from their natural tendencies of being nice. In addition to that, there will be no evolutionary pressure for meanness for the following reason. Those who produce more kids than they have enough food to rear are more likely to rear even fewer so people won't produce more kids than they can get enough food to rear so there will be an evolutionary stable population size with each woman on average producing 1 kid. There will be an evolutionary advantage in fighting back anyone who starts a fight for more than their fair share of resources but the evolutionary cost of losing the fight and getting even less is bigger than the evolutionary advantage in winning the fight selecting for people who won't even start a fight for more than their fair share of resources in the first place. The reason there was previously an evolutionary advantage in men sometimes being rough is because it sometimes enabled them to reproduce with more women and have more kids that are their own, and because it would enable him to stop his wife from having an affair and if she does, he can't have as many kids that are his own.
There's the unfortunate cost of humans reproducing asexually which is that they will evolve to be less intelligent because they will have an even better connection supressing ability because it will be easier to evolve it, with no hyperaware people like Kim Peek out there. For that reason, researchers are going to have to research how to create an evolutionary stable eugenics program that actually will give them a defect in the connection supressing ability making them superintelligent. One way to evolve them to have a defect in the connection supressing ability is if people who have a defect in the connection supressing ability are still extremely unlikely not to have the skills they need for survival making the natural selection against a defect in the connection supressing ability as weak as the genetic drift for it. Fortunately, the requirement to be able to look at a star puzzle then solve it in the bare minimum possible number of moves blind folded all in 4 minutes by reproduction age and to not lose that ability at an older age will select for smartness without selecting against a defect in the ability to supress connections unrelated to solving it because people have such a long time gain that ability by continuously getting smarter that a proper connection supressing ability is not required to ensure that you will get that skill.
Maybe if in addition to the eugenics for the ability to solve the star puzzle by reproduction age, we did not engineer a woman to reproduce asexually by parthenogenesis but instead engineered a man to reproduce sexually by parthenogenesis where his genome could produce a man or a woman and he reproduces with a lot of women to produce an entire colony of people all of which have exclusively his genome but only a few of which are men, then a man from that colony can reproduce with a lot of women from that colony to produce the next colony. One of those colonies will bud into 2 colonies and then those colonies that bud into 2 colonies will outcompete the colonies that don't so there will be many colonies so natural selection can select for better colonies. Once humanity reaches an evolutionary stable size, bigger colonies will outcompete smaller colonies and then they'll be so big that people will evolve to be very smart because they'll evolve to do complex tasks for the colony. They'll actually evolve to be really monsterously big because unlike ants, it will be a male that produces the colony and males can evolve to reproduce in such large numbers with ease. Those who don't like growing up maybe will have no problem because they'll feel like kids because they're women and men in the colony tell women in it what to do but not the other way around. Unfortunately, the evolutionary stable strategy would give people a good strong connection supressing ability that makes it so that if one of them went to school, they'd badly struggle to retain information and think of ideas to get marks on tests and it the connection supressing ability would be really strong because of parthenogenic reproduction but at least it wouldn't be as strong as it would be once after they reached an evoltionary stable strategy if humanity were all females with each person producing one kid by parthenogenesis because it's so hard to evolve a strong connection supressing ability for such complex skills. What we really want is people with the type of brain that would have evolved if the following occurred. Men produce colonies in the same way and Earth provides an environment for them that doesn't change for 4,000,000 years. Suddenly the environment changes and each person was taught in school what they need to do to survive including a complex set of rules on how to react to an unpredictable future situation and yet has 1 chance in 20 of being unable to survive and reproduce due to their inability to retain information and figure things out from it with survival being environmental by chaos theory rather than genetic. After that, natural selection selects for people with a defect in the connection supressing ability because they're more likely to be able to learn what they need to learn and they start evolving the defect faster than they would have by genetic drift alone. Even mutations for a faster mutation rate get selected for because the only people with a certain amount of defect in the connecting supressing ability after a certain short amount of time are the ones who had a faster mutation rate further speeding up the evolution of the universal defect in the connection supressing ability making humans so intelligent because they had already evolved to do complex tasks for the colony. After even more time goes by, they would evolve the ability to supress connections unrelated to survival in the new environment. What we want is people with the trait that would have evolved after they evolved the universal defect in the connection supressing ability but before they evolved a new connection supressing ability for the new environment. Hopefully some day, researchers will figure out how to create an evolutionary stable eugenics program that will give people the same trait but without first creating a nasty change like that.
In addition to that, people would evolve to be very altruistic. Maybe scientists will invent the technology to live a lot longer and on average it won't be until they're 6,000 years old that they're tired of life and don't want to continue living but that can still be done without an overpopulation problem if each person born after a certain time on average produces fewer than 2 children because then there will be fewer people who have not yet reproduced and they'll produce even fewer people. However, since they eventually want to die anyway, there will keep on being new people so we might as well evolve them to have better traits. Since we can't make humans live for ever, some time before they die, they should learn how to be unafraid of death the same way as I did by thinking of it in the following way; I define a future of a consciousness to be a consciousness that has a memory of that consciousness so by my definition, I don't have a future where I'm dead because I will have none of the memories of when I was alive after I die. Shortly after the colonies outcompete the rest of humanity not by taking resources and making them starve but by making them produce fewer children in the first place by reducing the amount of food they can get by being better at finding it, there will be so few men to do mean actions and the women will be so nice because there's so few men to influence them away from their natural tendencies of being nice. They'll also continue to be nice because it's evolutionary advantageous to remain that way because being selfish towards a fellow colony member is bad for the colony. Maybe only living in colonies and not having humans entirely female each producing 1 kid by parthenogenesis would prevent women from evolving from having a natural tendency to be a tiny bit more selfish. In some all girls schools, a lot of lockers are left unlocked. That's probably because each girl there learned from past experience that the girls there can be trusted not to steal anything and that in turn is probably partly because there were no boys to influence them away from their natural tendencies one speck. However, those altruistic traits are not evolutionary stable. So few girls very rarely interact with a boy so natural selection selected for women who are influenced by men to be a tiny bit selfish, not for ones who are naturally that way. Certain selfish actions like stealing something from a locker are not selected for. However, the evolution of other selfish actions that were selected for probably naturally resulted in those selfish actions as well.
I don't actually think we should change humans to living in colonies with a king because who knows what colonies will evolve to sometimes do to rival colonies. I prefer we change humans to individualy reproduce asexually. and reach an evolutionary stable strategy where they each produce 1 kid. Maybe the true evolutionary stable strategy won't have there be no men but will jut have them be very rare. If any mutant man occurrs who can have sex with a woman and have his sperm hijack her body to produce a kid with his genome and he has sex with many women, men will start to outcompete women but then women will evolve to be more resistant to their bodies being hijacked by a sperm to produce a kid with the man's genome until we reach an evolutionary stable strategy of men being extremely rare. If men were rarer, the nautral selection for resistance against their bodies being hijacked would be weaker than the genetic drift against it so women would evolve to be less resistant to the hijacking of their bodies by a sperm so men would stop being as rare.