I never heard eugenics described this way. Lets call it neo-eugenics to separate it from the exclusively wicked and actual examples of eugenics in practice.
Some criticisms of this idea
Your optimism about the outcomes of neoeugenics is unsupported by all historic examples. Forget the forced sterilizations and abortion. Never mind the industrial murder. Just focus on human attempts at artificial selection in general. The exclusive product of our efforts has been organisms that have a few wondrous traits, true. But every one must be exempt from nature or perish. Every fence, sheep-dog, pesticide, every bag of fertilizer, every blade turning the soil, every feed trough, every pen and barn is testament to the abject failure of artificial selection. Natural selection creates superior organisms without crunch or handicap. Artificially selected organisms are the Down syndrome patient. You need natural selection to invent Khan Noonien Singh.
Neoeugenics as a public good is a narrow and steep path, full of hardship and uncertainty. The abuses of classic eugenics is a paved avenue, sunny and straight. Might the 'improved' human be unable to digest, fight infection, even reproduce without a unwieldy infrastructure? (the inability to procreate might be a feature instead of a bug; who wants randy consumers to make unlicensed copies of valuable genes?) Might the artificial selection of traits like obedience, aggressiveness, and piety naturally select all the other traits out of existence? How long before the patience of those like you are overruled by the necessity of unfolding events?
Wise choices about traits are a contradiction because the act of choosing is foolish. Natural selection works because it is what artificial selection can never be: mindless, indifferent, abominably cruel. Who knew that abundance of food would lead to disease? Who imagined that an interconnected world would be lonely and isolating? Human imagination, intellect, and foresight are not inadequate, they are a hindrance, to prudent selection.
Artificially selected diversity is a contradiction in terms. Not since we left Africa have humans enjoyed the genetic diversity that the connected world offers us now. Why regress into the monoculture of artificial selection?
What unintended consequences lie down the road when we surrender the chisel of evolution for the butter-knife of neoeugenics? The perfected human is narrowed, hemmed in, constricted by the very scaffolding that supports his ascension. Where is choice when the mind is a product?