Eugenics needs to become mandatory

I suppose I need to again reiterate here that I will be debating the arguments proposed by the blog listed below since my opponent copy-pasted his response from there:https://medium.com...Before addressing these, I would also like to encourage my opponent to actually read the argument I crafted above; not a single word of his response addresses any of what I argued above (I guess that's yet another pitfall of the ol' Ctrl+V strategy). I hope that, in what you've promised to be your own thoughts and insights in the next round, you address the arguments I have previously made in addition to the new ones presented here.Clarifying the ArgumentSince my opponent has widened his scope on the topic of Eugenics but has provided no parameters for the debate, I wish to propose my argument: natural selection is a better method for biological success in humans than eugenics.I would also appreciate it if my opponent would clarify his stance on which type of eugenics he promotes; there are many styles of implementation. He has argued an extremely wide-range of styles that are often mutually exclusive. Is your argument seeking to pre screen babies? If so, please address the issue of cost I discussed above. Are you seeking to sterilize individuals with undesirable traits? If so, please clearly state which traits you believe should be the standard for sterilization. Are you seeking to euthanize those with less desirable traits? If so, please make clear what the parameters are in this instance and how you feel it should be effectively implemented. Rebutting the Plagiarized ArgumentI will now address the plagiarized arguments presented. For the record, citation is sexy.Argument I: Eugenics is a great idea.Rebuttal I: Natural selection just does it more effectively.I can't help but agree with the statement that eugenics is a great idea. Therein lies the problem; the idea behind it is great, but in practice, it's simply less effective and efficient in its overall goal than natural selection. One of the main reasons is that natural selection is immune to human bias and error: it simply always follows the trajectory of enhancing a species to ideally fit their environment. In order to do this, it operates on a bottom up model where is seeks to use the mixing of different genes in addition to mutations in genetic code to create a robust genetic diversity as a breeding ground for creating well fine-tuned and well-adapted traits.Eugenics, on the other hand, while it's aims (in my opinion) are noble, it just doesn't work as effectively as natural selection. This is because it imposes a top down model on genetics which has the consequence of limiting genetic diversity. my opponent might say, "this is a good thing! We want to limit genetic diversity so that we get more of the traits that we want in a limited gene pool!". Unfortunately, that's not actually how genetics works. For a prime example of why this is problematic, we need look no further than incest. The reason why incest is more likely to produce genetic defects is because of the limiting of the gene pool. Let's look at why:The Briefest Summary of Genetics Ever WrittenEvery single complex organism on earth (yes, this includes humans!) has a collection of genetic material. In humans, these are organized into chromosomes, and chromosomes are made up of DNA (the iconic double helix strands). Each one of those "bars" we see on the double helix is actually made up of two alleles. The reason why we get constant mixtures of alleles is because haploid cells (sex cells) only contain half a person's genetic material. So you get half your alleles from the father, half your alleles from your mother.This is something you may not know, based upon your responses thus far: in every human, there are abnormal, mutated and damaged genes. Many of these genes are lethal. However, these kinds of genes are generally always recessive, meaning they generally require the gene to be expressed in both alleles. This means that each and every human is a carrier of many, many harmful and potentially lethal genes. When natural selection is allowed to flourish, we get remarkable diversity in the gene pool so that the likelihood of a single human having two copies of the harmful allele are extremely slim. When we begin limiting the gene pool with certain practices like incest or eugenics, we drastically increase the likelihood for both harmful alleles. This means that the more limited the gene pool, the more likely deformity, disability and genetic disorders become. "Moral" arguments aside, this development in genetic understanding is actually one of the main reasons we've moved away from eugenics rather than towards it. Argument II: We have enough resources and knowledge to know exactly which genes affect which behaviours.Rebuttal II: We actually don't know what over 98% of our DNA does.Even though we've sequenced the entire human genome, this simply means we've identified all of the genes that are characteristically human and some of the common variants in those genes. Unfortunately, we have so much more work to do because though we know what genes differentiate us from, say, a banana, we don't actually know what proteins all those genes code, how they are affected by the expression of one another and, perhaps most glaringly, how all the other DNA in our bodies affects those genes.Once the genome was sequenced, there was a huge amount of DNA we thought was useless. Only very recently has the scientific community begun to show evidence that they previously disregarded "junk DNA" may actually be the DNA that acts as a complex system regulating which genes are to be expressed, when, and where. One of the recent famous examples of this was the case of using this DNA to control where on the body a fly would grow another eyeball. (I have posted a link to this below if you're interested). Argument III: Out of context emotional, moralistic plea for better genes.Rebuttal III: Homogeneity makes us too susceptible to extinction.I would argue that the real emotional plea in this argument is a future where we can keep growing and evolving better traits to suit our environment. Natural selection is a tool for a species to not only keep improving and avoid genetic deformities and disability (even animals generally do not practice incest). Just as importantly, however, natural selection is a method to keep genetics diverse so that we are more able to withstand external changes in the world around us. Mass exterminations of a single populace are preventable with genetic diversity and adaptive capability. In our species' infancy, a group of primates got split into two because jungle conditions began to be strained by the population. Half of our early primate ancestors got pushed into the fields while the other half remained in wooded regions. Those that got pushed out were forced to adapt because they could no longer use trees as a means for escaping prey. Instead, we had to learn to use tools. Those that were too 'unintelligent' to learn tool making and usage died; those that mastered it thrived and passed those genes. This kind of 'natural eugenics' continued until we ended up becoming the remarkable beings we are today. We are still continuing to evolve by this process, and interfering with it will actually do more harm than good.Sources UsedWilson, David Sloan; Wilson, Edward O. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundations of Sociobiology. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 82 (4). 2007. : 327–348Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. New York : Oxford University Press, 1978.John R.Nambu, Josephine O.Lewis, Keith A.Wharton Jr., Stephen T.Crews. The Drosophila Single-Minded Gene Encodes a Helix-Loop-Helix Protein that Acts as a Master Regulator of CNS Midline Development. Volume 67. Issue 6., Rev. 2004, Pages 1157-1167.