No I’m not a fascist (at least I hope not…)
I’m trying to understand why we’ve normalised the idea of eugenics in dogs (e.g. golden retrievers are friendly and smart, chihuahas are aggressive, etc.)¹ but find the idea of racial classification in humans abhorrent.
I can sort of see it from the idea that Nurture (culture and upbringing) would have a greater effect on a human’s characteristics than Nature would.
At the same time, my family tree has many twins and I’ve noticed that the identical ones have similar outcomes in life, whereas the fraternal ones (even the ones that look very similar) don’t really (N=3).
Maybe dog culture is not a thing, and that’s why people are happy to make these sweeping generalizations on dog characterics?
I’m lost a little
1: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/74/f7/df74f716c3a70f59aeb468152e4be927.png
Owners aren’t the direct problem other than providing economic encouragement for breeders.
The problem is breeding which only happens through inbreeding. “Good breeders” is a misnomer in that the difference between a good breeder and bad is one attempts to limit health problems while engaging in an activity that will cause health problems.
If one doctor is trying to give you cancer and the other is trying to give you a little cancer, neither is a good doctor.
Good point, I didn’t distinguish between owners and breeders, nor the types of breeder ideologies.
If we extrapolate that to humans, would you be for a “good doctor” who tries to knock-in genes that would make your children smarter and healthier, versus say, a “bad doctor” who knocks in whatever superficial characteristics you want.
Or would you be against the idea of designer children completely, because you ultimately would not trust that any genes you or any expert selects for, would actually be beneficial for your great-great-grandchildren?
I’m not sure what side of the debate I lie on here, tbh
But if a little cancer can trick your immune system into fighting cancer, then we’re back to a good doctor again.