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
It’s worth noting that eugenics doesn’t HAVE to be the crazy barbaric “murder the r-tards” kind of eugenics. Even doing something like selectively offering free contraceptives to poor people could be considered eugenics.
Hell, it’d still technically be eugenics to teach people not to breed if they have certain genetic diseases, even if it’s just a doctor going, “yea that’d be a bad idea. They have a very high chance of X disease.”
Yes because it’s not up to debunked nazi pesudoscience to tell people what they can and can’t do with their reproduction.