[sugarfactory]

It's just funny that it is still called "natural selection" even when the environment that selects individuals is created by nothing but ourselves. I think it'd be much more accurate to call it "social selection" because for humans the environment is not nature, but society.

With that in your mind, those of you who are clever might wonder: what is the fundamental difference between "social selection" and eugenics, which many consider morally wrong? My answer is: they are essentially the same thing. It's because if we define eugenics as society deciding who to reproduce and who not to, that's exactly what is happening now.

[eggy]

I will not argue the common usage meanings that have come about for 'natural' and 'artificial' for things like plastic flowers or street lamps, but I look at 'ourselves', or humankind as part of nature, and not supernatural, or apart from it. I am not sure when this distinction or usage arose, but 'artificial' or using 'societal' here seems self-hating, and I don't think the term 'natural selection' is archaic or exclusive in this sense.

The same reason I find cell towers made to look like trees an eyesore, and I much prefer the 'natural' shape a truss tower takes with its wide supportive base, diagonals and ever-decreasing thickness to the spire. I personally find these more aesthetically appealing. Light from 'artificial' light bulbs is made of photos regardless of color temperature and the time of day it is turned on. I don't like plastic flowers, although plastic is also found in nature, but just not as structured, homogenized, or in the quantities we produce it.

I agree with you on the 'social selection' and eugenics bit. My Mom had bought me a hardcover 'Eugenics' textbook from an old bookshop originally published in England in the 20s. Scary content given what occurred 20 years later, but it was humorous to me when reading it in 1976, especially the chapter on 'The Honeymoon' and how to have the proper one with attendant drawings! I was twelve at the time.

[mirimir]

Well, here there's selection against characteristics that eugenics typically favored.

[patall]

There is a fundamental difference. Natural Selection works on an individual basis, everyone tries to maximize the amount of his or her DNA in the world. In eugenics (and to a lesser degree in social selection) someone else (or the group) decides that his or her DNA should not be inheritet. Basically capitalism vs. communism.

[brute]

In sexual selection there is also someone else (i.e. the group of females in a peacock population) that decide whose DNA should not be inherited. And sexual selection is considered a part of natural selection. So your argument does not hold.

Wikipedia: Sexual selection is a mode of natural selection where members of one biological sex choose mates of the other sex to mate with

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

I could even argue the same thing for natural selection itself. When a predator kills an animal, he decides that the DNA of that animal should not be spread further in the future.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Humans are only "fundamentally different" in that we have alpha castes as well as alpha individuals.

It's not unusual for animal alphas to monopolise/deny mating opportunities. Eugenics is the same evolutionary invention taken up a level.

Ironically, this means proponents are acting just like animals.