[zepto]

Dawkins is failing there.

Yes, we breed animals and direct their evolution.

In all his examples, the animals are more fragile and less able to survive independently than they were before.

That is pretty much the opposite of what eugenics aims at and is exactly one of the problems it is criticized for.

Dawkins can be a fool sometimes.

[mistermann]

Breeding optimizes certain characteristics, independent survival is likely not a high priority.

[zepto]

Then Dawkins is wrong and his examples don’t prove what he claims.

Just because you can breed fragile animals for narrow purposes does not mean you can breed a better human.

[xyzzyz]

> Just because you can breed fragile animals for narrow purposes does not mean you can breed a better human.

Note that your whole argument hinges purely on the meaning of the word "better". Once you rephrase the issue in terms of "can we bread a human that's more like X or less like Y", the answer is "obviously, yes". Your whole argument is based on some subjective judgement as to whether these are "better", but it is completely irrelevant insofar as answering the question whether artificial selection in humans is possible, and whether it could significantly affect trait distributions -- the answers to these questions are yes, and yes.

By the way, we are already breeding humans more fragile, precisely due to increase in medical state of art. If medicine technology helps significant number of humans to survive and reproduce that otherwise wouldn't have, and it clearly and obviously does so, it will result in observable increase in traits that would significantly decrease the fitness in the context outside of human civilization, just the same as farm animals. I don't think that this complex issue of not just letting those people die without reproducing can be neatly wrapped up in a single word "better", but make no mistake: selection for more fragile humans is very much happening, right now.

[zepto]

Removing the word ‘Better’ makes this into a straw man. Nobody argues that humans aren’t subject to selective breeding.

It’s not Eugenics if it doesn’t involve someone’s idea of what is ‘better’. In that instance it’s just genetics.

Given that we are already producing humans who are more fragile, it’s easy to see that further directed evolution could push us more in that direction.

Civilization itself has many fragilities, which we are currently insulated from to the degree that we ourselves are anti-fragile. It’s easy to see that directed breeding could lead to a more fragile civilization.

That would be a failure of eugenics. Dawkins foolishly oversimplifies and fails at his argument because he doesn’t take the time to understand the meaning of the word.

It is not at all obvious how we could avoid this failure. Dawkins silly examples actually show the direction to the failure mode, not the direction to successful eugenics.

[mistermann]

Do you believe there is something unique about humans that should lead one to believe they are immune to selective breeding?

[zepto]

Of course not. Why would you imagine that?

[mistermann]

This statement: "Just because you can breed fragile animals for narrow purposes does not mean you can breed a better human."

If removed the word "better" would it significantly change your opinion? I'm kind of at a loss for what I'm not understanding.