>>11403743>How hard is it?It's not hard, but you still need to prove that. And your arguments are just comparisons and strawmen.
>it's not a good indictment of humans' ability Once again, what humans tried to do with dogs is different in its methods and goals (there are several) which are the specific causes of those issues you speak of, and so doesn't prove anything in general.
>snipping their balls off for it won't actually reduce crime.That's not the point you were making. The definition of superior there IS very clear : people who were not convicted, diagnosed with a mental disease, or who have a certain amount of money. Now the causes of those sorts of superiority are complicated and largely not genetic, but the concepts themselves are very simple and straightforward to apply.
>the number of generations Is exactly one. Sterilize them and you're done. And if by parent population you mean host population, Jews and gypsies prove that ethnic divisions can survive for millennia.
I should mention here that I'm not advocating for that kind of policy, just pointing out that you're condemning it for the wrong reasons.
>such programs invariably attract the worstYou're right on that but you forget that "such programs" are indeed just these two, which are no longer promoted by the current powergrabbing reactionaries.
The third one is the one you want.
>It can also mean giving parents the power to actually improve the genetic health of their children Sure, and that's what I would want too. But as much as you were too severe with the rest, you're too naive with this option if you think it's less likely to be abused by powerful people. Basically every technology can reinforce inequity.
For example gene modification could be made expensive and only available to the rich who would then feel and act even more superior.
And as long as two humans exist, their relative status will matter to them. Computers are superior at chess, but human chess competitions continue.
