Eugenics-Do it`s principles work in theory?

The fundamental problem with eugenics is how do you decide who gets to call the shots. Who are you granting that power to, and how do they maintain power? How do you stop extremely self-interested people from coopting the system to pursue their own interests at the expense of the larger group?

>No such thing as a "step down" in biology. They are perfectly adapted to their environment (living and working with humans).
That's a pretty short-sighted world view.

There ARE steps down, but you don't see them because most of them have died (individuals) or gone extinct (species).

At last I finally see.

Yeah, okay, but dogs as a group are doing pretty well. Nothing that survives and thrives (I'd wager there are way more dogs than wolves today) can be considered a step down.

It's infeasibly difficult for a species with generation times as long as humans. Furthermore, the wide variance in characteristics within the offspring of even a single couple (exactly how similar are you to your siblings?) and extreme impact of developmental environment make pinning down the relative frequency and strength of desirable characteristics to any rigorous standard nigh impossible - to say nothing of humans' extreme lack of docility when restricted in the manner necessary to carry out this work.

If you had absolute power over a completely willing populace for a thousand years then maybe you'd have the glimmer of a chance (and even then you'd have a glut of severe genetic disorders to contend with, which would probably wipe out whatever meagre gains you might make), meanwhile wielding those same powers to provide a stable and enriching development for dozens of generations of children would yield vastly greater returns.

I wouldn't call it unfeasible. Think about the slave trade, for instance. I think there have to be some significant differences between the black people now in the US (or the Americas in general) and the ones in Africa. The selection pressure must have been enormous, and imposed partly by man, not nature.

But of course, no one in their right mind would study such a thing today, or they'll have him hanging in the city square.

Or actually, more appropriately, burning at stake.

The only difference is admixture.

People don't know what kind of genetics actually is better, or what better is

>10% death rate on crossing the ocean
>rebellion meant death
>not being physically fit for labor meant death
I highly doubt it is only admixture.