Nonsense...
We are part of Nature, in the end the strongest and the fittest are who survive, don't try to "improve" this rule!
Natural selection can go in a wrong direction which leads to over-specialization or degeneration and finally to the extinction of groups and species.
We can think, we control our environment to a certain degree, but on the other hand we let degenerate our populations. Logical? For sure it isnt to me.
Tall and strong build represents something. In a natural selection f.e. males 1 vs 1 or 10 vs 10, the result of a fight might be influenced by the body type as well as the overall physical strength.
For sure there are limits, but lets say it that way, not just by chance, if possible (no extreme cold, no malnutrition, no need for extremely high reproductive rates) the selection went in a certain direction for physical features.
At least its about physical strength and attractiveness.
BTW I didnt saiy that are SOO important features compared to others. For sure being blond isnt the most important feature...
Probably compensation? ^^
Serious, wouldnt it be better if they had such good features, wouldnt it be better if their good features would be combined with progressive other features?
Well, you want to bring back the merciless hunter gatherer or primitive agricultural or herder societies?
Back to the roots?
Because if its about selection between small groups living in such a subsistence, natural selection is showing acceptable results in humans.
Not perfect, but good results.
Now we take a look at modern societies, especially liberal ones without any restrictions or Eugenic measures:
In 1st WW the best and fittest, most collective oriented people were slaughtered but the diseased, dumb and degenerated survived and reproduced themselves.
Today the example with the women in liberal societies is clear:
The best features disappear because they are bred away.
Thats a fine example.
Lets look at it:
Bad results because of manipulation come up because the people dont invest enough and WANT bad results.
If you would manipulate humans because you want them to look funnier or to be more easily to manipulate, to conditioned, because you want them small and handy etc. you would get degenerated scum, especially if you over-breed them and let inbreeding rule.
Of course thats nothing I want or any of the people which propagated Eugenic measures by humans.
If you want to compare good results of breeding than look at dogs like the German Shepherd or the Husky.
Really? What do you think I was speaking about? Eugenic has the goal to eliminate with human means as much genetic problems and diseases as possible.
I already explained why such things happen in certain animals, especially if bred cheap by incompetent people with wrong goals.
They dont act like Eugenic-thinking people would, they just look at certain features but forget the big picture, something I would never do and always want to prevent.
Its the same thing today with humans, just those which reproduce themselves, even if its because they are too dumb to use contraception correctly.
Do you speaking about correctly bred Shepherd with a genpool big enough to prevent inbreeding? For sure not.
You speak about a certain dog race which had acceptable features (probably an obedient hound) which developed under natural selection (which doesnt exist in humans like it would be acceptable because of human self-domestication and modern subsistence-medicine) good features.
Yes, because the diseased are selected whereas the often expensive inbred dogs kepts alive even if already degenerated. They even are bred further because they have a certain value by bad and unscrupulous breeders which want the profit even if the purchaser just get a degenerated dog for 6 years...
If one group has good general features, the only reason to mix would be to decrease the rate of homozygote defect genes which are present at a high rate.
That is not problem in big population and modern (praenatal, genetic) means are much more effective to prevent that.
Eugenic is to some extent artificial, therefore it doesnt have the same goals every time.
If its about what I mean, it would mean less diseased, less degenerated, but more attractive, healthy, intelligent and progressive people in the group using Eugenic means.
Not to forget that this individuals would have a higher potential for themselves and for their collective which would lead to a greater possible survival under more extreme conditions than what would be possible for a degenerated population.
Another point is, if humans would have bred dogs some thousands years ago, this dog couldnt been used as a pet in a way you mean.
It would be a dog which would even eat little children like the Dingo.
Furthermore THE LACK OF REAL EUGENIC MEASURES lead to the signs of degneration you described by "bred" dogs.
The natural selection on work in those dogs (which I doubt because the extremely wild or ugly ones will be still killed I suppose) is something we miss in modern human societies.
It would be like you would bred just the dumbest, ugliest, most aggressive, asocial, ferocious and most primitive dogs.
Nothing you would like to have in your family.
No decent human wants too much of such humans in his collective, not speak about his neighborhood or in his family - the problem is just you have to do something to prevent it.
