Consume Product

But that's not really eugenics. Its definition is tainted by the fact that it focused on humans and that desired characteristics are those one would consider naturally beneficial. What you describe is the process of the process of breeding - seeking to mold a given population to fit specific demands, not to objectively improve it. We (our ancestors) have bred various plants and animals to suit our needs, but nobody claims they are "superior" to their originals. If anything, they became dependent on us.

Eugenics would be to breed wolves into superwolves, who are stronger, smarter, faster, more independent. It's like taking evolution into our own hands and become intelligent designers rather than have nature run its own course. The result does not benefit any other life form than itself.

This is why eugenics is only referred to with humans, because it is assumed that improving the genetic setup of a given population makes it stronger, smarter, better. It would be more desirable because women naturally look out for these factors for reproduction (vica versa too to a lower degree). It would increase average IQ, eliminate genetic diseases, improve physical fitness and health.

Eugenics isn't subject to dispute in the sense of arguments about what traits are preferable. The only dispute is if the process itself is moral.

Turning populations into docile, low-IQ slaves isn't eugenics. It's breeding. Nobody in the population finds those traits preferable - they barely reproduce naturally. And because it decreases measurable factors (like IQ), it can be considered dysgenics as well.