Is Eugenics feasible or is it pseudoscience?

[Anonymous No.9155376]

Serious question, is it possible?
>inb4 go back to /pol/

[Anonymous No.9155457]

You must select for the PHENOTYPE.

[Anonymous No.9155464]

Look at dogs and look at wolves. That should tell you the extent of what Eugenics is capable of. For all their designer characteristics and all there use to us, a wolf is easily the more generally survivable animal. Genetics is astronomically complicated and if you attempt to select for certain traits, you end up only acting on small numbers of key genes while leaving the larger mass of biodiversity unchanged. You can get longer legs, bigger muscles, and more attentive temperaments but that usually results in joint problems, heart problems, and psychological fixations.

Using such eye-level judgments of "preferable and non-preferable subjects", you can never truly breed a better human, just a more specialized human.

[Anonymous No.9155469]

>>9155464
Issues that certain breeds suffer from stems more from abusive breeders than it does from dog breeding in general. Working line dogs that are bred properly are no less healthier than wolves.

[Anonymous No.9155488]

>>9155469
Of course you can lessen pronounced physical susceptibility for dogs that are already not too far away from wolves in form
by re-introducing bio-diversity into the system, but (a) for the most part, they still exist- no matter how "well bred" German Shepherds are, they have a tendency towards obsessiveness and often require training- and more to the point (b) all you're doing is breeding them closer to their natural balance while maintaining the docility and aesthetics that were bred into them. And while those are certainly fine accomplishment for pets, I don't think those are the aims of Eugenics. Or maybe they are.

[Anonymous No.9155926]

>>9155464
I disagree, I think you just need to find the right combos.

[<3 !KuriSUuOwg No.9155944]

>>9155457
[math]\mathfrak{PHENOTYPE}[/math]

[Anonymous No.9156054]

>>9155464
I mean...wolves are going extinct.

I'd say that in the world where humans run things, dogs are definitely more likely to survive.

[Anonymous No.9156071]

>>9155926
Which is much more easily said than done,considering how poor our understanding of the genome is at the moment

[Anonymous No.9156112]

>>9155469
Heck, even horribly dysgenic monstrosities like pugs used to be reasonably healthy many moons ago before greedy breeders went full retard. "Ancient" dogbreeds like mastiffs or mollosers that are still bred for utility and not aesthetics are as healthy as any wild animal while still being essentially placid good boys:

https://youtu.be/wUurm6fQ750

[Anonymous No.9156150]

It is very feasible nowadays. It just has to be soft eugenics over hard eugenics now. Eventually, we'll be able to edit a person's genome to the point that we can control everything about them.

I don't think we'll see Brave New World tier levels of controlled traits soon, but I could see it gradually phased in centuries from now.