FINE, I will do this rant. What Snarkin says here is true: eugenics doesn’t work for animals, so BESIDES being a sick, amoral thing to suggest for humans, is also crap science. Come with me on this magical journey.
Exhibit A is, of course, the dog. Purebreds have rampant genetic health issues. They cannot survive on their own. And - this part is fucking KEY, here, folks - the very selection that might make them good at one thing will make them VERY BAD at other things.
Heeler? Great cowdog, terrible livestock guardian. Terrier? Great hunter, terrible child companion. Put a husky in the desert = dead. Chihuahua in the Arctic = dead. They are all good at something. This DOES NOT MAKE THEM AN INHERENTLY BETTER ANIMAL.
Goats? Same thing. They produce 4 things: meat, milk, fiber (cashmere and mohair), and more goats. Focus any of those things and you lose production for the rest. Maximize production and you start to lose vigor. Same for sheep, cattle, any domesticated animal.
Which is why heritage and primitive breeds are valued. If eugenics worked, if we really created “better” animals overall, heritage breeds would be worthless. Instead, they are used to cross in vigor to commercial flocks.
The real question is, better FOR WHOM? Better AT WHAT? There are always, ALWAYS trade-offs. Selective breeding gives you a DIFFERENT animal, not necessarily a BETTER one.
Eugenics gave us pugs, sheep that can’t shed their wool and die if unsheared, turkeys that can’t mate naturally and are dumb as stumps, meat chickens that can’t live past a year or two, and a million parasite and disease susceptibilities. Stop suggesting eugenics for people. FFS
(Clearly YMMV. You may have a lovely terrier. It’s 280 characters, there’s not much time for nuance.)
